Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
#26

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
You could apply the same logic to Zeus or Odin. The stories evolve. They don't have to be the same ones or agree, they just have to include recognizable touchstones. The final story wins by a lottery process in which the final story is the one that outspread and outlasted all the others. It's an organic process. Thinking that there had to have been some coordinated conspiracy just underscores a general lack of understanding of culture. No hegemony of black rap artists convinced young black men to expose their underwear and wear their pants around their ankles. It just happened organically. The dangerous hitchhiker story wasn't penned by some secret cabal of Marchen writers and spread through indoctrination. A bloom of similar stories burst forth from the landscape, eventually coalescing around the most salacious and popular elements. Culture just doesn't work the way you seem to think it does, Aliza.
[Image: giant%20meteor%202020.jpg]
The following 3 users Like Dānu's post:
  • mordant, brunumb, Chas
Reply
#27

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Whether or not Solomon existed in some form, he will always be the Wilt Chamberlain of the OT to me.

However, as far as I’m aware, there’s no evidence supporting or refuting a fabulous and influential king of Israel at around the time that Solomon is supposed to have existed. Also, though, this isn’t my field or specialty.
god, ugh
Reply
#28

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Quote:If the story is faked outright, it makes more sense that there existed a Jewish king that the story was based on, and that it was embellished slowly over multiple generations.

The problem there is that leaves you right back with the dilemma faced by jesus freaks in the Historical Jesus/Biblical Jesus argument.  Sure, in their quest to portray some historical basis for the godboy xtians will downgrade him from the miracle working son of god to some asshole who got himself killed for some reason or other.

There is no evidence of any Davidic Empire.  There is no evidence that the countries which would have been overrun to make up that empire had any idea that they had been conquered.  There are no obvious artifacts scattered about which indicate that any so called "United MOnarchy" ever existed.  The kingdom of Israel is referred to in Assyrian texts as Bit Humri (House of Omri) and many people try to say that bytdvd means House of David although the latter is an Aramaic text and the term may be a place name according to George Athas.  In Aramaic there should be a dot separating the words byt and dvd if it meant House of David.

Whatever, archaeology indicates that in the 10th century "Jerusalem" (or whatever it may have been called) may have been little more than a fortified manor house for the local warlord who was in charge.  Archaeologist David Ussishkin has suggested that for a time the site was totally abandoned.  It's sole raison d'etre was the Gihon Spring and if that spring had dried up the place would have been uninhabitable.

So asserting that there was some schlepper named Solomon does not solve the problem.  If he was little more that the chief goat herder on a hilltop so what?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • mordant, Szuchow, brunumb
Reply
#29

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
For the record, the name of the Assyrian king Shalmenessar is a Greek rendering of his actual Akkadian name which was Šulmanu-ašarid. 

Sulmanu?  Solomon?  I usually do not put much stock in words which sound like other words but in this particular case Sulmanu-asarid actually WAS a great king, rich from the Arabian trade and ruling a far flung empire.  It would make for a pretty good model for a culture which wanted to shake off its primitive and poverty stricken beginnings with a few pretensions of grandeur.

For that matter, there are temples in Syria which correspond to the supposed "Solomon's Temple" which was supposedly in Jerusalem.  The issue there is that we have artifacts and relics from Ain Dara and Tayinat while no one has ever found a so much as a single stone which can be traced to some magnificent temple in "Jerusalem." 

There is no question that the Judahite kingdom grew prosperous under Assyrian hegemony.  When the Assyrians collapsed the impression is that later writers looked back on it as some sort of "Golden Age" and appropriated Assyrian trappings for themselves.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • mordant
Reply
#30

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Whatever his origins in history -- if any -- Solomon is simply a Jewish culture hero and a ripping yarn for people in need of a competence fantasy to groove to. In history, as elsewhere, if it's too good to be true, it most likely isn't.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#31

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Exactly, but biblical literalists can't accept that.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#32

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(09-03-2020, 05:02 AM)Minimalist Wrote: A take off on the Jesus thread above but this one with an OT slant.

Keeping in mind that there is no archaeological attestation for "Solomon" and that the only textual reference to him is in the OT this reduces him to little more than a character in a book of fiction.

Let the opinions fly!

Huh?

There's no evidence that anyone in the OT actually existed.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#33

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
A lot of the foreigners existed.  Sennacherib.  Nebuchadnezzar.  Cyrus the Great.  Shalmenessar.  Hazael.  Tiglath-pileser.  Necho.  Sargon II.  Shoshenk.  

You're right that the alleged "jews" are in short supply when it comes to historicity.  Want to speculate on why that might be?   Big Grin
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply
#34

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(09-06-2020, 09:08 PM)Free Wrote:
(09-03-2020, 05:02 AM)Minimalist Wrote: A take off on the Jesus thread above but this one with an OT slant.

Keeping in mind that there is no archaeological attestation for "Solomon" and that the only textual reference to him is in the OT this reduces him to little more than a character in a book of fiction.

Let the opinions fly!

Huh?

There's no evidence that anyone in the OT actually existed.

The first king of Israel to be attested to out side of the Bible was Omri.  Mentioned in the Mesha stele among other places.  Israel was known the Assyrians as Omriland.
And my little boy named my truck "Giddyup gah gah gah!"  Isn't he cute?  He's only eight.



The following 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#35

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Quote:Omriland.


More or less.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#36

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Jehu. King of Israel. The black Obselisk from Assyria shows Jehu bowing down before Shalmaneser III. First derpiction in history of an Israelite King. First naming of an Israelite king outside the Bible.

“I received the tribute of Iaua (Jehu) son of (the people of the land of) Omri"
The Black Obselisk of Shalmaneser III
And my little boy named my truck "Giddyup gah gah gah!"  Isn't he cute?  He's only eight.



Reply
#37

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(09-06-2020, 11:55 PM)Minimalist Wrote: A lot of the foreigners existed.  Sennacherib.  Nebuchadnezzar.  Cyrus the Great.  Shalmenessar.  Hazael.  Tiglath-pileser.  Necho.  Sargon II.  Shoshenk.  

You're right that the alleged "jews" are in short supply when it comes to historicity.  Want to speculate on why that might be?   Big Grin

OK, I had to look up Tiglath-pileser. Impressive guy. Maybe the first to accurately record military campaigns.

And when I read "Shoshenk" I made an internal joke about "The Shoshenk Redemption"... I'm hopeless sometimes.

But I wanted to ask about the "alleged "jews" are in short supply when it comes to historicity". I suspect they never were in Egypt. Their pottery says not. Rather that they were in Persia. Well, after you wander around in a desert for a generation, who can recall?

And their religious myths did come from there. Big Grin
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
Reply
#38

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Quote: I'm hopeless sometimes.

Aren't we all?


There is no short answer to your question.

Try to forget everything that so-called "Biblical scholars" have to say (That term is basically shorthand for "bible-thumping assholes" ) and look at the archaeology and non-biblical texts such as they are. We know there were "Canaanites" in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period. They gave rise to the Hyksos Dynasty around 1,600 BC. But they were Canaanites, not "Jews." The Hyksos got their asses kicked in a revolt from Upper Egypt which chased them out and, to make a long story short, c 1500 BC set off a 400 year occupation of Canaan by Egypt. Somehow the OT doesn't seem to know anything about that.

Around 1200 all of the Late Bronze Age kingdoms (except Egypt which was seriously weakened) collapsed in some kind of region-wife upheaval, which if you want to take Professor Eric Cline's view, was caused by a series of natural disasters which led to revolution and massive migration. This is referred to as "The Sea People" but it seems to have been more complicated than just that.

Around that time the first villages which would later coalesce into the kingdoms of "Israel" and "Judah" formed either from refugees from the coastal cities or nomads who had to settle down to grow grain that they could no longer get from their burning trading partners on the coast or (most likely) both. But Egypt began a millennium long descent into geopolitical irrelevancy after 1200 BC which with few spikes or resurgences ended at Actium in 31 when they became the personal property of Octavius.

Would Egypt have been a cultural lure for the poverty stricken inhabitants of Canaan? Of course. And Egyptian religion did not significantly change until the Ptolemies in the 4th century. The idea of the Ark of the Covenant could easily have been borrowed from the Egyptian Opet Festival where the "gods" were carried about in boxes on poles.

[Image: 3b6b276083138884bff210fb88e274de3c47cb54...4v2_hq.jpg]

But just as many Assyrian/Babylonian elements can be found in "jewish" religion so the safest guess might be to say that what eventually came to be Judaism was a syncretism of every silly superstition being practiced by the more powerful nations which dominated them.... culminated with the Zorastrian ideas of Persia.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#39

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
[Image: 1469768561.png?precrop=1876,1935,x0,y0&h...width=1429]
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)