Solomon’s Wall - Again

Sci-Tech Today has published an article giving details about the wall found in Jerusalem that may be dated to the time of Solomon.

The following is an excerpt from the article:

An excavated wall in Jerusalem may hold proof of the Bible's account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time, a point of dispute among scholars. The fortifications are located just outside the present-day walls of Jerusalem's Old City, next to the holy compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount.

An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.

If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C.

That's a key point of dispute among scholars, because it would match the Bible's account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time.

While some Holy Land archaeologists support that version of history -- including the archaeologist behind the dig, Eilat Mazar -- others posit that David's monarchy was largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.

Speaking to reporters at the site Monday, Mazar, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called her find "the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel."

You may read the article in its entirety by clicking here.

You can also read my original post (with photos) dealing with the discovery by clicking here.


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Archaeology, Eilat Mazar, Solomon, Solomon’s Wall

King Solomon’s Wall?

Image: Eilat Mazar and the ancient wall of Jerusalem




Hebrew University has announced that archaeologist Eilat Mazar has excavated a section of an ancient city wall of Jerusalem that probably was built in the tenth century B.C.E. According to Mazar, the wall was probably built by King Solomon.

Below are a few excerpts from the press release:

A section of an ancient city wall of Jerusalem from the tenth century B.C.E. - possibly built by King Solomon - has been revealed in archaeological excavations directed by Dr. Eilat Mazar and conducted under the auspices of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The section of the city wall revealed, 70 meters long and six meters high, is located in the area known as the Ophel, between the City of David and the southern wall of the Temple Mount.

Uncovered in the city wall complex are: an inner gatehouse for access into the royal quarter of the city, a royal structure adjacent to the gatehouse, and a corner tower that overlooks a substantial section of the adjacent Kidron valley.

***

"The city wall that has been uncovered testifies to a ruling presence. Its strength and form of construction indicate a high level of engineering," Mazar said. The city wall is at the eastern end of the Ophel area in a high, strategic location atop the western slop of the Kidron valley. "A comparison of this latest finding with city walls and gates from the period of the First Temple, as well as pottery found at the site, enable us to postulate with a great degree of assurance that the wall that has been revealed is that which was built by King Solomon in Jerusalem in the latter part of the tenth century B.C.E.," said Mazar.

"This is the first time that a structure from that time has been found that may correlate with written descriptions of Solomon's building in Jerusalem," she added. "The Bible tells us that Solomon built - with the assistance of the Phoenicians, who were outstanding builders - the Temple and his new palace and surrounded them with a city, most probably connected to the more ancient wall of the City of David." Mazar specifically cites the third chapter of the First Books of Kings where it refers to "until he (Solomon) had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the wall of Jerusalem round about."

***

In addition to the pottery shards, cult figurines were also found in the area, as were seal impressions on jar handles with the word "to the king," testifying to their usage within the monarchy. Also found were seal impressions (bullae) with Hebrew names, also indicating the royal nature of the structure.

Image: Handles of jars inscribed with 'to the king' (LMLK) that were found at the excavation site.

Photo: Sasson Tiram







If this discovery confirms that the wall was built by Solomon, or, if the wall is dated to the time of Solomon, then this finding will again confirm that Jerusalem was more than just a small city in the tenth century.

Those scholars who take a minimalist approach to interpreting the reigns of David and Solomon continue to affirm that the monarchy of David and Solomon did not exist as the Bible describes it. However, evidence continues to appear that dispute the minimalist view of Jerusalem in the tenth century. Archaeologists have already found a stela mentioning the name of David. Will a discovery of a monument with the name of Solomon be next?


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Archaeology, Eilat Mazar,Solomon, Jar Handles, Jerusalem Wall, LMLK Seals

“Black and Beautiful” or “Black but Beautiful”?

Last week it was my time to organize the chapel services for the seminary community. Once a year a faculty member is responsible for planning and leading the chapel program. This time, I decided to do something different. I decided to arrange the Song of Songs as a play and perform it in chapel.

Song of Songs is mostly unfamiliar to Christians because they do not read it very often. When they do, they wrongly call it “The Song of Solomon” believing that Solomon wrote this beautiful song. In Hebrew, the title of the book is a superlative. The book should be translated “The song of all songs” or “The greatest song.”

Many Christians follow Jewish tradition by ascribing the authorship of the Songs to Solomon. In fact, a Jewish saying declares that when Solomon was young he wrote Proverbs, when he was in love he wrote Songs, and when he was old he wrote Ecclesiastes. None of these, of course, is true, but it serves to continue the idea that Solomon was the writer of these three Biblical books.

As for the canonicity of Song of Songs, the book had some problems in being accepted as part of the canon. The reason for this reluctance is because Song of Songs tells a story of love with graphic sexual language. Most people reading Song of Songs in English will not notice the sexual language because the writer used euphemisms to hide the sexuality of the dialogue between the woman and her lover.

Eventually, the book was accepted as canonical because it was interpreted allegorically. Under this interpretation, Song of Songs describes the love of God for Israel or the love of Christ for the church. However, when properly understood, Songs is a love story. The book describes in poetic form the love between a man and a woman.

Over the centuries, most readers of the book have struggled with the proper interpretation of this story of love. The traditional interpretation says that the book tells the story of two lovers: Solomon and the Shulammite. For the proper interpretation of the story, it is important not to confuse the Shulammite (Songs 6:13) with Abishag the Shunammite of 1 Kings 1:3-4. They were two different persons.

Under the traditional interpretation of the Songs, the book is telling the readers the story of Solomon’s love for the Shulammite. The traditional interpretation also implies that Solomon wrote Song of Songs in order to express his love for the Shulammite.

There is, however, a problem with the traditional interpretation. If the lover whom the woman loved was Solomon, then the reader must also assume that Solomon was a shepherd who took care of his flock. For this reason, it is very clear that Solomon was not the man the Shulammite loved.

A better interpretation of the Songs sees three lovers in the story: Solomon, the Shulammite, and the one she loved, the shepherd. Under this interpretation, Songs is a story about Solomon and not a story by Solomon.

This interpretation understands Song of Songs as a satire on Solomon. The story celebrates the victory of true love and tells of the occasion when Solomon’s desire to have another woman as a member of his harem was foiled by a peasant woman who refused to exchange the man she loved for the comfort of the palace.

Here was a man who already had “sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number” (Songs 6:8-9), but who wanted one more. But Solomon’s display of riches and might (Songs 3:6-11; 8:11) to gain the love of a peasant woman did not succeed. Solomon’s wealth and royal position could not convince the woman to accept the king’s advance and deny her love for the shepherd.

Song of Songs celebrates true love between a man and a woman, the kind of love that cannot be bought with money: “Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If a man offered for love all the wealth of his house, he would be utterly despised” (Songs 8:7).

Who was this remarkable woman, the Shulammite, who refused the wealth of Solomon and the enticement of royalty in order to remain true to her shepherd lover? The Bible has little to say about her. However, it is what she said about herself that has attracted the attention of many scholars.

She said about herself: שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה
English translations differ on the interpretation of her words:

The New Revised Standard Version: “I am black and beautiful.”

The Douay-Rheims Bible: “I am black but beautiful.”

The English Standard Version: “I am very dark, but lovely.”

The Jewish Publication Society: “I am black, but comely.”

The Septuagint (LXX): “I am black, but beautiful.”

The Shulammite words are addressed to the women of Jerusalem. Although the women do not respond, it is apparent that the women are looking at the Shulammite with disdain because of her appearance. She refers to her color and compares it with the tents of Kedar and the curtains of Solomon.

“I am very dark, but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon” (Songs 1:5 RSV).

She said that she had a dark complexion because she was exposed to the hot sun, since her brothers punished her by ordering her to take care of the vineyards:

“Do not gaze at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has scorched me. My mother's sons were angry with me, they made me keeper of the vineyards; but, my own vineyard I have not kept” (Songs 1:6 RSV).

The text does not say that her dark complexion was due to her racial background, that is, that she was an African woman. Her dark skin pigmentation was not a reference to a racial feature.

What the Shulammite was trying to say to the women of Jerusalem was that the exposure to the sun on her body made her to be darker than the women who lived in Jerusalem. She was dark because she did not protect her body from the intense heat of the sun.

The Shulammite’s words reflect the fact that peasant women who worked in the fields had dark skin because of the constant exposure to the sun, while the women who lived in luxurious houses of Jerusalem and those who lived in the palace were less dark and more white.

The woman explained her blackness by comparing it with the tents of Kedar and the curtains of Solomon. The tents of Kedar were bedouin tents made of black goat hair. Although the text does not clarify what was intended by “the curtains of Solomon,” they were probably curtains or wall hangings found in Solomon’s palace known by its beauty and artistic designs.

The reading of the Holman Christian Standard Bible tries to include both ideas in its translation, but in the process it diminishes what the Shulammite says about herself: “Daughters of Jerusalem, I am dark like the tents of Kedar, yet lovely like the curtains of Solomon.”

The reason for the punishment her brothers inflicted on her was because she did not keep her own vineyard. The symbolism behind the vineyard is probably a reference to her virginity, that is, that she gave herself sexually to her shepherd lover and as a result her brothers punished her for her indiscretion.

Thus, the Shulammite asked the women of Jerusalem not to pay attention to her black skin. In Hebrew the conjunction waw can be translated as “and” or “but.” Many people object to translating the Shulammite words as “black but beautiful” because such a translation may suggest that blackness is not beautiful. Critics complain that this translation may point to some kind of racial prejudice.

A careful look at the text reveals that the woman was explaining that although she had a dark complexion that she was beautiful. The reason she spoke about her dark skin was probably because it had become an issue in the minds of people who belonged to the upper class of Jerusalem.

So the questions must be asked: should we translate the waw as “and” or “but”?

A careful examination of the Shulammite words in light of her conversation with the women of Jerusalem reveals that the woman was defending her dark skin. In addition, verse 6 explains that her skin was dark because her brothers forced her to work in the vineyards and she was exposed to the hot sun. This is the reason she asks the women of Jerusalem not to look at her and her dark complexion with disdain.

The text has nothing to do with race, neither is the text saying that white skin is more attractive that dark skin. The problem is that society classifies people as either black, white, or brown. Since this woman was a Semitic woman, she probably had dark skin. She was not white. The Shulammite defended her dark skin not because she believed that it was ugly, but because her natural skin was not like that.

Thus, readers must conclude that the woman was unhappy about her dark skin because it was not her natural skin color but it was the result of being exposed to the sun for a long time. The proper translation of 1:5 should be: “I am black but beautiful.”

However, when we read the words of the Shulammite, we can say with assurance, that she was black and beautiful, for the woman herself speaks unashamedly about her beauty: “I am black and beautiful.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, Solomon, Song of Songs, Shulammite, Women

The Location of Solomon’s Temple

In a lecture at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer said that he has found the location of Solomon's Temple.

The following is an excerpt from Ritmeyer’s lecture as published by Baptist Press:

According to Ritmeyer, the original Temple Mount platform measured 500 cubits by 500 cubits. The "royal cubit" used for the temple was 20.67 inches long. Later, King Herod expanded the platform on the Temple Mount, doubling its size. It is the expanded, Herodian platform that tourists in Jerusalem visit today.

***

From information in the Mishnah, he theorized that the temple stood where the Dome of the Rock shrine now stands. If so, the Holy of Holies and the Ark of the Covenant would have rested on the rock inside the Dome of the Rock. Though some archaeologists dispute his claims, Ritmeyer presents a compelling case for his view.

The Mishnah stated that the temple was not located in the center of the 500 cubit by 500 cubit platform but was slightly northwest of center. This gave credence to his view. Ritmeyer then looked for confirmation on the surface of the rock.

The archaeologist saw that the large rock had numerous cuts, lines and indentions on its surface. Many other archaeologists had rejected the rock as a source for clues because of the number of cuts on the surface. Not so with Ritmeyer.

"I look at every stone on the Temple Mount as archaeological evidence," Ritmeyer said.

Ritmeyer searched for marks consistent with the information he knew about the Holy of Holies. Again, he relied on the Bible, historical records and a tape measure to test his theory. He speculated that some of the cuts were made to level the site for the temple's foundation.

Ritmeyer knew the dimensions of the Holy of Holies from 1 Kings 6 -- 20 cubits by 20 cubits. He also knew the thickness of the walls. Ritmeyer discovered that cuts on the rock matched the thickness of the walls and the width of the room. He also found cuts made for the back wall of the Holy of Holies.

Another rectangular mark caught Rimeyer's attention. He believed that this depression was the place the Ark of the Covenant stood in Solomon's Temple. Ritmeyer went to Exodus 25 for the ark's dimensions -- two and a half cubits by a cubit and a half. Using photographs and computers to measure the depression, scholars have found that the cut measures two and a half cubits by two cubits -– ample space to receive the ark.

Ritmeyer has presented a compelling argument for finding the original location of Solomon’s temple. Visit Baptist Press online and read all the evidence Ritmeyer has presented in his search for the location of Solomon’s temple.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Archaeology, Leen Ritmeyer, Solomon, Temple

William G. Dever and the Existence of Solomon’s Kingdom

In a recent lecture at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, archaeologist William G. Dever defended the existence of an Israelite state in Palestine during the 10th century B.C., the biblical era of Solomon's reign.

The following in an excerpt from Dever’s lecture:

"Tonight, I want to talk about the age of Solomon, but before I do that, I want to set it up by telling you something about a school of European biblical scholarship," Dever said. "These people call themselves revisionists because they are rewriting the history of ancient Israel, but when they finish, there is no history. They call themselves revisionists. I call them nihilists."

According to Dever, the revisionist scholars deny that an Israelite united monarchy, like the biblical kingdom that flourished under Solomon, ever existed. Dever contested this claim, arguing that the archaeological evidence confirms the existence of a centralized Israelite state in 10th century Palestine.

According to a "wonderful, detailed description" in 1 Kings 9:15-17, the Egyptian pharaoh attacked and destroyed the city of Gezer, Dever said. The pharaoh then gave the city as a dowry to his daughter when she married Solomon. The passage then states that Solomon fortified or refortified four sites: Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer and Jerusalem.

"Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had archaeological evidence from those sites for an early stage? Well, we do," Dever said. "And what do you suppose the revisionists make of this evidence? They just ignore it, because it is inconvenient for their theories."

Dever reported that excavations, especially at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer, have uncovered "monumental architecture" that cannot be explained without reference to a centralized government. The architecture of each of these cities is adapted to topography for strategic military advantage, but all the cities show the same structural patterns, such as six-chambered gates, double or casemate fortification systems, similar palace structures and Phoenician masonry (according to 1 Kings, Solomon utilized Phoenician craftsmen in his building projects).

These architectural structures can be dated to the 10th century B.C., Dever said, with reference to stratigraphy, ceramic typology and ancient Egyptian chronology. This process is aided by the discovery of destruction levels, filled with rubble and showing evidence of fires "so fierce that it melted the limestone and it flowed down like lava." According to Dever, the destruction can be attributed to the military invasions of the Egyptian Pharaoh Sheshonq, that is, the biblical Shishak (1 Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 12).

"At one time, there stood a monumental Egyptian inscription at the site of Megiddo celebrating the destruction by Shishak," Dever said. Shishak was the first pharaoh in the 22nd Egyptian dynasty, and archaeological evidence shows that he raided Palestine in the late 10th century B.C. Amid the rubble of destruction, archaeologists also have discovered the hand-burnished pottery characteristic of the 10th century. According to Dever, this implies that the monumental architecture that Shishak and his army destroyed "must have been built a generation or so earlier -- and that places us precisely in the middle of the reign of Solomon."

"Of course, the revisionists argue that, 'Well, you've never found anything from the 10th century, nothing monumental in Jerusalem.' That's true, because we never were able to excavate [in Jerusalem]," Dever said. Jerusalem was the fourth city that Solomon refortified, and it was the center of his kingdom. Despite the lack of access to the archaeological evidence that lies below modern Jerusalem, Dever argued that biblical descriptions of Solomon's Temple resemble other 10th-century temples in the Middle East.

"All the descriptions in the Hebrew Bible," Dever said, "make good sense in the light of what we know about ancient architecture."

Revisionist scholars also contend that a centralized state could not have existed in 10th century Israel because literacy was not widespread, and the knowledge of reading and writing is necessary for the administration of a kingdom. Archaeological evidence like the Gezer calendar, however, has shown that even in rural areas young boys were learning to read during the 10th century and earlier, Dever said.

To read the article in its entirety as published in the Baptist Press, click here.

To learn more about Southwestern Seminary's involvement in biblical archaeology, visit http://www.swbts.edu/ or http://www.gezerproject.org/.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Archaeology, Solomon, Minimalists, William Dever

Did David and Solomon Exist?

Buy the book from Amazon.




Eric Cline, Chair of the Department of Classical and Semitic Languages and Literatures at The George Washington University, has written an article, published in The Bible and Interpretation, in which he discusses the archeological evidence for the existence of David and Solomon. The article is an adaptation of Cline’s new book, Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

The following excerpt was taken from the introduction to the article:

The debate as to whether or not David and Solomon existed has been one of the “hot-button” topics in biblical archaeology since the early 1990s. The introduction of a variety of new data has put to rest some aspects of the debate but intensified other aspects, and the debate itself shows no sign of coming to an end. The majority of the arguments by various scholars, on both sides of the debate, have been published in scholarly journals seldom read by students or the general public.

I recommend this article to all readers because Cline’s article is an excellent introduction to the archaeological discoveries related to David and Solomon and to the discipline of archaeology.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, David, Eric Cline, Tel Dan Stele, Solomon,

The Archaeological Evidence for David and Solomon

Image: The Tel Dan Stele


Norman Hammond, the archaeology correspondent for the Times has a review of Eric Cline’s new book, Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction, in which Cline introduces the discipline of biblical archaeology and the results of archaeological work in the lands of the Bible.

The following is a short excerpt from Hammond’s article.

Until 15 years ago, Professor Eric Cline notes in a new book, there was no extra-biblical documentary mention of even the House of David as ruling in Judea. The fragmentary Tel Dan Stele, found reused as building material at a site in what is now northern Israel in 1993-94, provided the first evidence outside the First Book of Kings.

Dating to about 842BC, the Tel Dan inscription describes the defeat of Joram, king of Israel, and Ahaziyahu, king of Judah, by a ruler of Aram-Damascus earlier in the 9th century BC. The Israelites had invaded his territory, located somewhere in Lebanon or southern Syria, but he “slew seventy kings, who harnessed thousands of chariots and thousands of horsemen. And I killed Joram son of Ahab, king of Israel, and I killed Ahaziyahu, son of Joram, king of the House of David.”

“However, we are still lacking any contemporary or near-contemporary inscriptions that mention Solomon: at the moment we do not have a single one,” Professor Cline says. “Moreover, there is still very little archaeological evidence for the existence of David.”

The status of Jerusalem at this period is also debated, with some scholars arguing that the Bible account of a powerful capital city is true, others that it was, two millennia after its first settlement in the Bronze Age, what Professor Cline dubs “a small ‘cow town’. In fact, it is still not clear where David is positioned along the continuum from tribal chieftains to might kings.”

Hammond has presented a good review of Cline’s book. In the article there is a photo of the Tel Dan Stele. However, the caption of the photo misspelled Tel Dan; it reads “The Ten Dan Stele.”

Notwithstanding this obvious mistake, Hammond has written a good article.

You can buy the book on Amazon.com.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags:Archaeology, David, Eric Cline, Tel Dan Stele, Solomon

Who Was King Lemuel?

Recently, a reader asked me to explain who King Lemuel was. Lemuel is an enigmatic figure that appears twice in the Old Testament. His name appears in Proverbs 31:1 and 31:4. However, in Proverbs 31:4 his name appears as Lemoel in Hebrew.

Because King Lemuel is not listed among the kings of Judah and Israel, several theories have been developed to explain the presence of Lemuel in Proverbs 31. In this post, I will review some of the proposals developed by scholars in order to identify Lemuel.

1. The Name of the King was Muel

Some scholars believe that the lamed at the beginning of the name Lemuel is a preposition meaning “to” or “for.” Under this view the name of the king was not Lemuel but Muel. Thus, Proverbs 31:1 would be translated “Words for Muel.” This is the view adopted by Justo J. Serrano in his commentary “Proverbios,” La Sagrada Escritura (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1969), p. 524.

Although the name Muel does not appear in the Bible, the name is related to Nemuel, a descendant of Simeon (Numbers 26:12; 1 Chronicles 4:24). Nemuel’s name appears as Jemuel in Genesis 46:10.

This explanation of the name of Lemuel is questionable because it does not resolve the problem of identification, that is, it does not explain who king Muel was, if such a king ever existed. This view has not been accepted by many scholars.

2. Lemuel was another name for Solomon

The ancient Rabbinical commentators identified Lemuel with Solomon. The Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Aboth, Chapter 5) says that six names were given to Solomon: Solomon, Jedidiah, Qoheleth, Ben Iokoh, Agur, and Lemuel. According to A. Cohen, Proverbs (Hindhead, Surrey: The Soncino Press, 1945), p. 209, Lemuel is another name for Solomon that when translated means “towards (lemo) God (el).”

In his book Solomon and Solomonic Literature (Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2008), p. 67, Moncure Daniel Conway tells a rabbinical story that relates Proverbs 31 to Solomon and Bathsheba. He wrote:

The Ancient Rabbins identified Lemuel with Solomon, and relate than when, on the day of the dedication of the temple, he married Pharaoh’s daughter, he drank too much at the wedding feast, and slept until the fourth hour of the next day, with the keys of the temple under his pillow. Whereupon his mother, Bathsheba, entered and reproved him with this oracle. Bathsheba’s own amour with Solomon’s father does not appear to have excited any rabbinical suspicion that the description of the virtuous wife with which the Book of Proverbs closes is hardly characteristic of the woman.

The theory that Lemuel was Solomon is an attempt at defending the traditional view that Solomon wrote the book of Proverbs. It is clear from Proverbs 25:1 that Solomon did not write the book of Proverbs. Rather, the book was probably edited by the Hezekiah’s scribes or by a later editor.

3. Lemuel was not the name of a person

Although the Bible does not identify King Lemuel, Jewish tradition holds that Lemuel was a poetic name for Solomon. In Hebrew, the name Lemuel means “for God.” The name Lemuel may be related to Lael, a person mentioned in Numbers 3:24, a name which means a man dedicated “to God.” Under this view, Proverbs 31:1 may be translated as follows: “The words of a King for God, the utterance which his mother taught him.”

The translators of the Septuagint (LXX) also did not recognize Lemuel as the name of an individual. The Septuagint translated Proverbs 31:1 as follows: “My words have been spoken by God.”

The view that Lemuel was not the name of an individual is an attempt at discrediting the possibility that a non-Israelite wrote a section of the book of Proverbs. Although Proverbs 31:1 is difficult to translate into English, it is clear that Lemuel is the name of an individual.

4. Lemuel was the king of Massa

Many scholars believe that Lemuel was the king of Massa. Massa was one of the descendants of Ishmael and the leader of one of the Ishmaelite clans (Genesis 25:14). This is the view adopted by several versions in their translation of Proverbs 31:1. For instance, the New Jerusalem Bible translates Proverbs 31:1 as follows: “The sayings of Lemuel king of Massa.”

Andrew Hill, in his book A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), p. 381, said that if Massa was the name of a North Arabian nation, then the words of Lemuel in Proverbs 31 “may reflect the influence of Arabian wisdom on the developing Hebrew wisdom tradition. Massa has been identified with the tribes settled in northwestern Arabia near Teman (cf. Gen. 25:14; 1 Chron. 1:30).”

However, this translation is problematic because it requires that the athnah under the Hebrew word melek (“king”) not be considered in the translation of the text. The athnah is a major accent in Hebrew which divides a verse into two sections. If the athnah was taken into consideration, the translation of 31:1 would be: “The words of Lemuel, a king.”

Those who take the athnah into consideration in the translation of the text also believe that the Hebrew word “massa” is a common noun, meaning “burden” or “oracle,” rather than a place name. This is the reading some versions have adopted in their translation of verse 1. For example, the New Revised Standard Version translates Proverbs 31:1 as follows: “ The words of King Lemuel. An oracle that his mother taught him.”

I believe that the best explanation for the name of Lemuel in Proverbs 31:1 is to identify him as the king of Massa. Wisdom literature was widely known in the Ancient Near East and Israel did not develop its wisdom tradition in a cultural vacuum. It is evident that Israel borrowed some of its wisdom traditions from neighboring countries. One good example is the inclusion of Egyptian proverbs found in the “Instructions of Amen-em-Opet” into Proverbs 22:17-24:34.

As Donald K. Berry said in his book An Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1995), p.30, “Israel made little attempt to cover the alien origins of wisdom literature. For instance, a portion of Proverbs (31:1) opens with the name of a non-Israelite king.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: King Lemuel, Solomon, Massa

Solomon’s Copper Mines Discovered

Photo: Industrial copper slag mound excavated at Khirbat en-Nahas. Date: 10th century BCE.

Credit: Photo by Thomas Levy, UC San Diego.

Two archaeologists have announced they have found a copper -production center at Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan. The site is dated to the 10th BCE and may be related to the copper production center developed by Solomon. The fallowing is an excerpt from the article:

Led by Thomas Levy of UC San Diego and Mohammad Najjar of Jordan's Friends of Archaeology, an international team of archaeologists has excavated an ancient copper-production center at Khirbat en-Nahas down to virgin soil, through more than 20 feet of industrial smelting debris, or slag. The 2006 dig has brought up new artifacts and with them a new suite of radiocarbon dates placing the bulk of industrial-scale production at Khirbat en-Nahas in the 10th century BCE – in line with biblical narrative on the legendary rule of David and Solomon. The new data pushes back the archaeological chronology some three centuries earlier than the current scholarly consensus.

The research also documents a spike in metallurgic activity at the site during the 9th century BCE, which may also support the history of the Edomites as related by the Bible.

Khirbat en-Nahas, which means "ruins of copper" in Arabic, is in the lowlands of a desolate, arid region south of the Dead Sea in what was once Edom and is today Jordan's Faynan district. The Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) identifies the area with the Kingdom of Edom, foe of ancient Israel.

For years, scholars have argued whether the Edomites were sufficiently organized by the 10th to 9th centuries BCE to seriously threaten the neighboring Israelites as a true "kingdom." Between the World Wars, during the "Golden Age" of biblical archaeology, scholars explored, as Levy describes it, with a trowel in one hand and Bible in the other, seeking to fit their Holy Land findings into the sacred story. Based on his 1930s surveys, American archaeologist Nelson Glueck even asserted that he had found King Solomon's mines in Faynan/Edom. By the 1980s, however, Glueck's claim had been largely dismissed. A consensus had emerged that the Bible was heavily edited in the 5th century BCE, long after the supposed events, while British excavations of the Edomite highlands in the 1970s-80s suggested the Iron Age had not even come to Edom until the 7th century BCE.

"Now," said Levy, director of the Levantine Archaeology Lab at UCSD and associate director of the new Center of Interdisciplinary Science for Art, Architecture and Archaeology (CISA3), "with data from the first large-scale stratified and systematic excavation of a site in the southern Levant to focus specifically on the role of metallurgy in Edom, we have evidence that complex societies were indeed active in 10th and 9th centuries BCE and that brings us back to the debate about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible narratives related to this period."


Khirbat en-Nahas, comprising some 100 ancient buildings including a fortress, is situated in the midst of a large area covered by black slag – more than 24 acres that you can clearly see on Google Earth's satellite imagery. Mining trails and mines abound. The size argues for industrial-scale production at Khirbat en-Nahas, Levy explained. And the depth of the waste at the site, more than 20 feet, he said, provides a "measuring stick" to monitor social and technological change during the Iron Age, which spans around 1200 to 500 BCE, a key period in the histories of ancient Israel and Edom.

The archaeological team, Levy said, used high-precision radiocarbon dating on date seeds, sticks of tamarisk and other woods used for charcoal in smelting (along with Bayesian analysis) to obtain the 10th- and 9th-century BCE dates. The analyses were carried out by Thomas Higham of the University of Oxford.

Additional evidence comes from ancient Egyptian artifacts found at the site. The artifacts, a scarab and an amulet, were in a layer of the excavation associated with a serious disruption in production at the end of the 10th century BCE – possibly tying Khirbat en-Nahas to the well-documented military campaign of Pharaoh Sheshonq I (aka "Shishak" in the Bible) who, following Solomon's death, sought to crush economic activity in the area.

Read the article in its entirety by clicking here.

If the information proves to be reliable, this finding will clearly change the understanding of the history of the period. High precision carbon dating provides a 10th date for the site, a period that relates well with the activities of Solomon on the site.

In addition, if the Egyptian artifacts confirm Shishak’s campaign in the region, then the evidence again will point to Solomonic activities in the area and the historical reliability of the text. As the article states: “If the data proves to be reliable, this finding will clearly change the understanding of biblical history of the period. High precision carbon dating provides a 10th date for the site, a period that relates well with the activities of Solomon on the site.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Copper Mines, Solomon, Shishak, Thomas Levy

Solomon's Early Reign (2 Chr 1:1-17)

The story of Solomon as presented by the Chronicler (Chr) is inspired by the narratives found in 1 Kings. The description of Solomon’s reign provides continuity with the reign of David and affirms that God’s promise to David was fulfilled in the reign of his son and in the construction of the temple. Chronicles presents a more positive depiction of Solomon's reign than the book of Kings. A major portion of the narrative about Solomon’s reign is dedicated to events related to the construction of the temple. This dominant theme in the Solomonic narrative is seen as the realization of the promise made to David and the culmination of David's preparation for the building of the temple. The Chr also focuses on Solomon's wisdom and wealth. These gifts were given to him to prove the Chr’s agenda that Solomon was blessed because of his obedience. In 1 Chr 29:25 it is said of Solomon that “the LORD highly exalted Solomon in the sight of all Israel and bestowed on him royal splendor such as no king over Israel ever had before.” Because of Solomon’s obedience, God blessed him with wealth and wisdom, which he used to build the temple.

1:1-6 / The Chr begins his narrative about Solomon’s reign by introducing
him as the son of David. This introduction emphasizes that Solomon is continuing David’s work and that in him God was establishing David’s house. According to the Chr, Solomon’s reign began with a religious pilgrimage to the holy place at Gibeon. This pilgrimage occurred after Solomon established himself firmly over his kingdom (v.1). The establishment of the kingdom in Solomon's hand (cf. 1 Kgs 2:46b) may reflect the problems Solomon had in his struggle against Adonijah, his older brother (1 Kgs 1:1-2:46). The same phrase is used to describe the beginning of the reign of Rehoboam (12:13), Abijah (13:21), Jehoshaphat (17:1), and Jehoram (21:4). This expression is used by the Chr to indicate that a new king assumed the throne after overcoming some opposition. The religious focus of the Chr is evident in his declaration that the LORD was with Solomon and that he greatly blessed him.

Because the Chr omits Solomon's struggle with Adonijah, Solomon’s first act as king becomes his visit to the high place at Gibeon (v.3). The narrative in Chronicles differs slightly from 1 Kgs 3:4-15. The book of Kings presents the visit to Gibeon as a personal pilgrimage of the new king. The Chr, however, says that Solomon went to Gibeon with all the leaders in Israel (v.2). These leaders represented the tribal organization of early Israel (cf. 1 Chr 28:1). Among these leaders were the commanders of thousands (1 Chr 13:1), commanders of hundreds (1 Chr 13:1), judges (1 Chr 17:8), the leaders in Israel (1 Chr 11:3), and the heads of families (1 Chr 15:2). These leaders represented all Israel. Solomon led the whole assembly in this religious pilgrimage. At Gibeon, Solomon and the assembly worshiped the LORD and inquired of him (v.5). While Kings says that Gibeon “was the most important high place” (1 Kgs 3:4), the Chr defends Gibeon as a proper place of worship by saying that the Tent of Meeting and the altar of bronze made by Bezalel, ben Uri ben Hur, under the direction of Moses were in Gibeon (Exod. 40:17-19; 1 Chr 16:39-40; 21:29). The Ark was in Jerusalem under the tent David had made when he brought the Ark of God from Kiriath Jearim (1 Chr 15:1). Solomon offered a large offering upon the bronze altar. The large number, a thousand, may be a hyperbole used by the Chr to show Solomon’s dedication to the worship of God. On this occasion, the Chr uses a large number in order to magnify Solomon’s devotion to God. The Chr says that Solomon went up to the bronze altar, and offered sacrifices before Yahweh (v.6). This expression, missing in 1 Kings, affirms that Solomon acted as a priest at this occasion (cf. JPS: “Solomon ascended the bronze altar”).

1:7-13 / The theophany narrative in vv.7-13 is an abbreviation of 1 Kgs 3:3-
15. There are several differences between Kings and Chronicles. The Chr does not mention that God appeared to Solomon in a dream, although that may be implied in the fact that the theophany occurred at night. In the postexilic period dreams had fallen into disrepute because of past abuse (cf. Jer 23:23-28). The Chr omits Solomon’s statement that he was a “little child” maybe in an effort to present Solomon as a capable leader. The Chr also omits God’s exhortation to Solomon to obey the law (1 Kgs 3:14). This omission may reflect the Chr’s view that Solomon had already been exhorted by David to keep the law (1 Chr 22:13). God appeared to Solomon and offered to grant him any request to help him discharge his duties as king and govern the people (v.7), which God identifies as my people (v. 11). God’s words to Solomon serve to emphasize that Solomon’s rule over Israel was divinely ordained. Solomon acknowledged God’s great kindness toward his father (v. 8) and requested that God confirm his promise to David. The reference to the people being as numerous as the dust of the earth (v.9) is a reference to the promise God made to Abraham (Gen 13:16) and to Jacob (Gen 28:14). Instead of power and possessions, Solomon asked for wisdom and knowledge to rule over the people (v.10). “Wisdom” refers to the ability to rule righteously. “Knowledge” means the intellectual discernment to make right decisions. The promise Solomon alluded to in his request (v. 9) refers to God’s promise made to David in 1 Chronicle 17. God’s promise assured David that one of his sons would succeed him (1 Kgs 17:11) and that he would build a house for God (1 Kgs 17:12). God granted Solomon what he had requested and in addition promised to bless and prosper him with the wealth, riches and honor which he did not request (v. 11). The Chr wants to emphasize that Solomon’s wealth and wisdom are the result of his obedience to God. After worshiping the LORD at Gibeon, Solomon returned to Jerusalem and reigned over all Israel. The Chr omits Solomon’s sacrificing before the Ark after he returned to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 3:15).

1:14-17 / The accumulation of great wealth by Solomon was seen as the
fulfillment of God's promise. God had promised to give Solomon great wealth and now the Chr describes it. Solomon had 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horses or horsemen (the Hebrew word Päräšîm can be translated either as horses or horsemen). According to 2 Chr 9:25 Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his horses and chariots. Solomon placed some of the horses and chariots in Jerusalem and in chariot cities he had built for them throughout Israel. Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer have been identified as Solomon's chariot cities, but this identification has been questioned by some archaeologists. Archaeologists question whether the structures at Megiddo are to be identified as stables or storehouses. They also question whether these structures should be associated with Solomon or be assigned to Ahab, king of Israel.

Solomon accumulated his wealth by acting as a merchant. He imported chariots from Egypt and horses from Egypt and from Kue, a region in southeast Asia Minor identified with Cilicia. Solomon sold the horses and chariots to all the kings of the Hittites and of the Arameans. The Hittites were an Indo-European people who occupied most of the central Anatolian plateau (modern Turkey). The Arameans consisted of a confederation of city-states who flourished at the end of the second millennium in the area occupied by modern day Syria. Chariots were probably introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos about 1800 BCE. These chariots were usually drawn by two horses. The price of a chariot was six hundred shekels of silver and the price of a horse was a hundred and fifty shekels. Thus, a chariot cost four times the price of a horse. Solomon became so rich with his commercial ventures that it was said that silver and gold became as common as the stones in the hills of Israel and the expensive cedar became as plentiful as the sycamore-fig trees found in the Shephelah, the low foothills of Judah (cf. 1 Kgs 10:27; 1 Chr 27:28). The Chr does not criticize Solomon for accumulating wealth, rather he received favorable approval because his role in international trade brought him wealth, riches, and honor. Thus, the Chr is emphasizing that Solomon’s riches were the result of God’s blessings because Solomon’s wealth was to be used in the building of the Temple.

Additional Notes

1:1 / Established himself. The NIV translation implies that Solomon’s
accession to the throne came after he overcame the political struggles with Adonijah. The KJV’s translation, “was strengthened in his kingdom” suggests that it was the LORD who placed Solomon on the throne. The words the LORD his God was with him emphasize the LORD’s role in giving Solomon the throne.

1:3 / Assembly. The Hebrew word qāhāl is used to designate a gathering or an
assembly of any sort but the word is used more often to designate an assembly gathered together for religious purposes.

1:5 / Inquired of him. The text here is ambiguous. It could be translated
“inquired of it,” that is, the bronze altar. This is the translation adopted by the NRSV.

1:8 / Great kindness. The Hebrew word hesed, which is generally translated
great kindness, mercy, and steadfast love means loyalty and it refers to a deep commitment that comes out of a covenant obligation.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Solomon

The Wisdom of Old Age

James Ball Naylor (1860-1945) was a physician and also a prolific writer of early Ohio history. He wrote poetry and historical novels, with a focus on the struggles between frontier settlers and Indian tribes in the Ohio territory. Recently, I found one of his quotes that speaks about the wisdom of old age:

King David and King Solomon
Led merry, merry lives,
With many, many lady friends
And many, many wives;
But when old age crept over them,
With many, many qualms,
King Solomon wrote Proverbs
And King David wrote the Psalms

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Proverbs, Psalms, Solomon

Traces of the First Temple Found

Israel National News is reporting that traces of the First Temple have been found during the digging of a trench in the Temple Mount. The following is an excerpt from the news report:

The unauthorized dig of a trench this past summer by the Moslem Waqf on the Temple Mount had a thin silver lining: Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) personnel monitoring the trench-digging have, for the first time.

It was assumed that precious findings were destroyed.

The IAA studied an archaeological level dating to the First Temple Period, exposed in the area close to the south-eastern corner of the raised platform surrounding the Dome of the Rock.

Jerusalem District Archaeologist Yuval Baruch uncovered fragments of ceramic table wares, animal bones, and more. The finds date from the 8th to 6th centuries BCE; the First Temple existed between the 9th and 5th centuries BCE, having been built by King Solomon in 832 and destroyed in 422 BCE.

The archaeological team - Baruch of the IAA, Prof. Sy Gitin, Director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, Prof. Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University and Prof. Ronny Reich of Haifa University - reached the conclusion, after examining the finds, that their characteristics and location may aid scholars in reconstructing the dimensions and boundaries of the Temple Mount during the First Temple Period.

The finds include fragments of bowl rims, bases and body sherds, the base of a juglet used for the ladling of oil, the handle of a small juglet, and the rim of a storage jar. The bowl sherds were decorated with wheel burnishing lines characteristic of the First Temple Period.

The Israel Antiquities Authority is promising to hold a conference to discuss the findings and the reasons it associates these finding with the First Temple.

I hope that this conference is held as soon as possible. There are so many news coming out of this dig in the Temple Mount that the Israel Antiquities Authority should make an official statement of what is fact and what is propaganda.

Claude Mariottini
Profesor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Solomon, Temple , Temple Mount

A Rare Coin Found at Gezer

In an article published in the Star-Telegram.com, Steven Ortiz, an associate professor of archaeology and biblical studies at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, is reporting that a dig at a fortification in Gezer has revealed collapsed mud-brick walls which were probably burned by the Assyrians in the eighth century B.C.

In addition, archaeologists also found a cylinder seal with the image of a king, with his outstretched bow in hand, and riding on a animal. Archaeologists also found a silver coin dating to the reign of Ptolemy IV (207-205 B.C.). According to Ortiz, the coin is only the third of its kind excavated in Israel.

According to Ortiz, the people working at Gezer “were quite surprised at the preservation of the Assyrian destruction.”

Read the complete news report by visiting the Star-Telegram.com.

Of course, Jim West is skeptical about the findings. Jim wrote:

Perhaps it’s time to remind ourselves that without substantive evidence, the marriage of the Bible to scrapings in the dirt is tenuous at best; and the use of any and every bit of remains as linkage to the biblical narrative is disingenuous and ultimately misleading.

I wonder what it would take to convince Jim that some archaeological findings may demonstrate that some events in the Bible are based on historical facts.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Gezer, Solomon

The Lost Kings of the Bible: A Review

On Sunday, May 6, 2007, The National Geographic Channel will present the “Lost Kings of the Bible.” This program is a study of the reign of David and Solomon and a discussion of recent archaeological discoveries that have a bearing on the historical events described in the biblical text.

The blurb describing the program summarizes the content of the program: “Are two of the most famous kings of the Bible - King David and King Solomon - mythical heroes or made of flesh and blood?” The program will explore what the National Geographic Channel calls “groundbreaking new evidence that may provide answers to these questions.”

The purpose of this post is to review some of the issues that will be raised by the program and addressed by some of the archaeologists that were interviewed in the program. The issues discussed in this post are in the forefront of the debate raging in scholarly circles on the historicity of David and his monarchy.

The question that has been raised by biblical scholars and archaeologists concerns the historical reliability of the biblical texts. In recent years, archaeologists have claimed that the patterns of settlement in the land of the Bible have cast doubts about whether there was a united monarchy during the days of David and Solomon.

The traditional view says that after the death of Saul, David became the king of Judah first and then of Israel. David became the king of a united Israel. David’s kingdom grew and became a small empire. With the conquest of neighboring nations, David’s kingdom covered a territory that extended from the borders of Egypt all the way to the Euphrates.

However, this view has been challenged by archaeologists. In their book, The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman (p. 131) say that there is no archaeological evidence for David’s conquests or for his empire. Their conclusion was that archaeologists misdated the evidence for David and Solomon by a century (p. 142).

Some biblical scholars are skeptical about the historicity of the Davidic monarchy. In his review of Storia d’Israele: Introduzione alla storia d’Israele e Giuda dalle origini alla rivolta di Bar Kochbà by Alberto J. Soggin, Jim West wrote:

One overarching question that needs further address (not only by Soggin but by most historians of ancient Israel) is, How can so much be said about so many when historical sources are so few (and almost fairly said, nonexistent)? How can Soggin really say what he says about the Davidic monarchy when there is no historical source for it?

After discussing the problem of history vs. historiography, Jim concludes:

In short, what Soggin brilliantly offers us here is theology in the makeup of history. If the makeup is scrubbed off and the pristine skin of theology laid bare for what it is, we have a simple retelling of the story of the Bible. Or perhaps an archaeological example will be better. If the patina of theology is scrapped [sic] off the underlying historical events, the one who scrapes will soon discover that the patina is so thick that the actual artifact is forever encased and hence lost unless the patina is thoroughly shattered, which would sadly also shatter the membrane-thin artifact beneath. What Soggin (and virtually all other historians of ancient Israel) offers us is more patina on the existing patina of historicism. If this is not the case, I have a simple solution: let two or three witnesses (aside from the biblical text) be called and testify to what they have seen and heard or else admit the hearsay nature of the evidence and dismiss the case called Historical Ancient Israel as unfounded.

There are three witnesses (aside from the biblical text) that mention the house of David: the Tel Dan Stela, the Mesha Stela, and the Karnak Inscription.

The Tel Dan Stela. The discovery and publication of the fragments of the Tel Dan inscription revealed for the first time the existence of “the house of David.” This reference to David in the Tel Dan Stela is the first time that the name of David appears in a non-biblical material. Although a few scholars have made an attempt at translating byt-dwd as the “Temple of Dod,” this translation has been almost universally rejected. Dod as the name of a god does not appear in any ancient literature.

The Tel Dan mentions a king of Israel and a king from the House of David. Although the fragments are broken, the names have been identified with Jehoram, son of Ahab and king of Israel, and Ahaziah, a king from the house of David.

The Mesha Stela. The second reference to the House of David appears in the stela of Mesha, king of Moab. Mesha ruled in the 9th century B.C. Mesha had been paying tribute to Israel since the days of Omri but after the death of Ahab, Omri’s son, he rebelled and reconquered several cities that were under Israelite control, including the city of Horonen, which was under the control of the house of David.

The Karnak Inscription. The third reference to the house of David may be found in the Karnak inscription in Thebes. The inscription celebrates Shishak’s victory against the Asiatics.
Shishak, also known as Shoshenq I, was a Libyan and the founder of the Twenty-Second Dynasty of Egypt. Shishak invaded Canaan in the fifth year of Rehoboam, son of Solomon and king of Judah. The information about his presence in Canaan is found in 1 Kings 14:25-26 and in 2 Chronicles 12:2-9. According to the biblical text, Shishak took as tribute the wealth of the temple and the treasures of the royal palace. The inscription lists the places in Israel and Judah that Shishak said he conquered. Among the names listed there is a list of places located in “the heights of David.”

In addition to this possible evidence for the name of David, other recent archaeological discoveries are shedding light on the tenth century and events associated with the life of David. For instance, I have written about the discovery of David’s palace by Eilat Mazar and about Aren Maeir’s discovery of a broken piece of pottery containing an inscription in early Semitic style spelling with the name of Goliath.

More and more archeologists are discovering evidence that David was a real person. The discovery of inscriptions bearing the title “the house of David” tends to substantiate that David was a real person. Now, there is no reason to deny the historicity of David and his house.

As for the reality of a monarchy, the recent findings may not be enough yet to prove that there was a government in Jerusalem during David’s reign. Was David the leader of an Iron Age chiefdom? Is the concept of a united monarchy the legacy of the post-exilic community?

As Finkelstein and Silberman wrote:

There is hardly a reason to doubt the historicity of David and Solomon. Yet there are plenty of reasons to question the extent and splendor of their realm. If there was no big empire, if there were no monuments, if there was no magnificent capital, what was the nature of David’s realm?

I do not believe that the “Lost Kings of the Bible” will answer this question. Until a few years ago, some people were willing to say that David and Solomon never existed and that they were invented to promote a utopian view of a united Israel.

Today we can say with certainty that there was a “house of David” and that someone was called “Goliath.” Today we can say that Omri, Ahab, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoash, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea, kings of Israel, are mentioned in extra-biblical documents. We can also say with certainty that David, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, kings of Judah, are also mentioned in extra-biblical documents.

What else is buried in the remains of old cities? What kinds of written material are buried that have not yet been discovered? We do not know what else will be discovered a few years from now or in the next decade. But one thing is sure: little by little we are learning that the lost kings of the Bible are being found, one at the time.

References:

Biran, Avraham. “‘David’ Found at Dan.” Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 1994): 26-39.

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil A. Silberman. The Bible Unearthed. New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Kitchen, K. A. “A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and the Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76 (1997): 29-44.

Lemaire, Andre. “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription.” Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1994): 30-37.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Karnak Inscription, Lost Kings of the Bible, Mesha Stela, Solomon, Tel Dan Stela

Lost Kings of the Bible

The National Geographical Channel will present “Lost Kings of the Bible” on Sunday, May 6, 2007, at 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, 9:00 p.m. Central. The program deals with the reign of King David and whether or not David was a real person.

The following is a short description of the content of “Lost Kings of the Bible” provided by the
National Geographical Channel:

Are two of the most famous kings of the Bible - King David and King Solomon - mythical heroes or made of flesh and blood? Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all chronicled the fantastic lives of these kings but skeptics have historically dismissed the stories for their lack of proof. Now, in Lost Kings of the Bible, the National Geographic Channel explores the groundbreaking new evidence that may provide answers to these questions.

The new evidence mentioned above is the Tel Dan Inscription. Scholars agree that the Tel Dan Inscription mentions “the house of David” and gives evidence to the historicity of David. This is a program worth watching.

To watch a brief video of “Lost Kings of the Bible,” click here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

UPDATE: Jim West has a post about the “Lost Kings of the Bible.” In his post he has comments from Eric H. Cline and Aren Maeir who are participants in the program. Both of them agree that the program is balanced and gives a fair presentation of the scholarly debate about David and Solomon. I specially recommend that you read Cline’s comment.

UPDATE II: I have written a post reviewing the issues discussed in the program. Read "The Lost Kings of the Bible: A Review."

Tags: Archaeology, David, Solomon, Tel Dan Inscription