SOLOMON THE MYTH
Rohl, David (1995). A Test of Time: The Bible—from Myth
to History. London: Century tries to defend the Bible as historical in the face
of sensible researchers who have said it is largely against true history.
Chapter 8 of Rohl’s book claims to verify what is said about Solomon in the
Bible.
Solomon has been placed by most experts at a point in the Iron Age in which
archaeology contradicts the Bible which speaks of Solomon’s staggering wealth
and more sophisticated life-style. Rohl shoves him into another period, the
closing century of the Late Bronze Age. Archaeology has shown that there was
tremendous political wealth then.
And Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter which is said to explain the Egyptian
influence on architecture design in his country.
The Millo of Solomon, a stone terracing system in the City of David was said in
the Bible to have been dug by Solomon. Pottery was found in it that dated it to
the Bronze Age. The terraces were filled with rubble and rubble is likely to
contain such pieces anyway so there is no proof that Solomon could have built
the terrace no matter what Rohl says. There would have been scavengers and
builders at the rubble explaining how the pieces of pottery got there. Old
Potter was often used to make houses look nicer.
The Bible says that Solomon built a palace for the daughter of Pharaoh at the
City of David.
Egyptian artefacts were found in the ruins which Rohl says were once this great
palace.
But Rohl admits that it might not be a palace at all (page 183). The Bible says
that the palace overlooked the City of David.
The Bible says that the reason it was built was because Solomon did not want a
woman living in his own palace where the Ark of God had been.
The Bible claims that Solomon was incredibly wise. He would not have given his
wife a palace reflecting Egyptian culture. A statue of a woman with a snake, the
sign of wisdom, was found in the ruins so she was certainly an idol. We can take
it that when the Bible says that Solomon was wise that the Egyptian style palace
of the Egyptian princess did not exist. The bigoted Israelites hated anything
pagan so Solomon had to be discreet. He might have went over to paganism later
in life but he had to be discreet.
Rohl wonders if an ivory panel that could have once been part of a chair depicts
Solomon and his Egyptian spouse. This is impossible for Solomon would not have
dressed like a Pharaoh. The Bible says that there were lions on each side of
Solomon’s throne. On the panel there are not lions but winged lions with human
heads, the sphinxes. They were idols. Is it likely that the Bible would call
such creatures lions? Monsters would have been the preferred description. And
the sun shines over the horses implying that the sun is a god. The panel does
not picture Solomon.
The evidence that the Bible is wrong or unprovable if it is not seems strongest.
When Solomon cannot fit into the rich Bronze-Age period he can fit into none.
The 2001 TV series on ITV, Gospel Truth presented by John Mc Carthy has
disproved most of the major claims of the Old Testament. The title sequence of
the programme quoted the prophet Jeremiah saying that the priests had corrupted
the text of the Law of Moses, the supposed word of God, and put lies in it. One
of the claims refuted was that Solomon was so wealthy. Modern archaeology tends
to believe that Israel did not come out of Egypt and take over the Holy Land by
invasion but just grew out of the people of Canaan. No evidence for the Exodus
from Egypt as described in the Bible has ever been uncovered. Anyway the fact
that Israel’s pottery and script is so similar to the Canaanite design proves
that Israel was born in Canaan especially when the Law of Moses was so
determined to see any influence from the people of Canaan who were pagan
destroyed.
Israel Finkelstein who directs the Institute of Archaeology at the University of
Tel Aviv says that the fancy city of Jerusalem that the Bible says King David
had was nothing more than a village in David’s day and not the great city of an
Empire that the Bible would have us think. He claims that many structures that
are attributed to Solomon were built after Solomon’s time so he denies that the
Bible story of Solomon’s fabulous wealth and the glory he brought to his kingdom
is true. Finkelstein says there is no evidence for the united monarchy that the
Bible says existed under David and Solomon. Do a search for and read the website
The Bible, as History, Flunks New Archaeological Tests.