>
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,
var addthis_pub = ‘claude mariottini’;
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament 
>Dr. Mariottini,Thank you for calling attention to the above very readable, interesting, and informative article by Professor Eric Cline. Professor Cline’s article seems to provide an excellent introduction to biblical archaeology as has been practiced by professional archaeologists. However, the debate regarding David and Solomon and other aspects of biblical archaeology needs to be widened to include consideration of ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky and other authors on revising the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt. Velikovsky, Eva Danelius, Emmet Sweeney, and archaeologist David Down have argued that the biblical Shishak was Thutmose III (not Sosenk) and that bas-reliefs of Thutmose III at Karnak depict furnishings and vessels taken from Solomon’s temple during the reign of Rehoboam. Thus it seems to me that there is ample indirect archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon — if one is willing to explore the idea that the conventional dates for Thutmose III and many other pharaohs are in error.For interested readers: The above article mentions the Harvard Semitic Museum, which I visited in April 2004. Decades ago, its curator was Robert H. Pfeiffer. As I have mentioned previously at Dr. Mariottini’s blog, in Velikovsky’s posthumously published memoir ‘Stargazers and Gravediggers’, Pfeiffer is quoted as writing to Velikovsky the following in August 1942: “I regard your work—provocative as it is—of fundamental importance, whether its conclusions are accepted by competent scholars or whether it forces them to a far-reaching and searching reconsideration of the accepted ancient chronology.” As Dr. Mariottini pointed out in another post, Pfeiffer was Chairman of the Department of Semitic Language and History at Harvard University and mentioned that Velikovsky “discloses immense erudition”. It is important that many archaeologists and professional scholars rise to Pfeiffer’s challenge by doing a far-reaching and searching reconsideration of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt. This includes evaluating whether a lot of pottery linked directly or indirectly to Egyptian artifacts has been misdated due to reliance on Egyptian chronology.I suggest that professional archaeologists and scholars become familiar with the pioneer works ‘Ages in Chaos’ and ‘Peoples of the Sea’ by Velikovsky, ‘Empire of Thebes’ by Emmet Sweeney, and ‘Unwrapping the Pharaohs’ co-authored by archaeologist David Down. Also I suggest that readers new to this topic read the entire dialogue at the below link including the comments by Dr. Mariottini, me, Johnny C. Godowski, and Roger Waite.Adam Stuart http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2009/08/immanuel-velikovsky-and-history-of.html
LikeLike