King Solomon of Biblical fame has often been dismissed as historical fiction due to lack of corroborating archaeological evidence for his existence. This judgment may be imprudent based upon recent discoveries in ancient history which may salvage some of his historicity, though the imperial splendor ascribed to him by Jewish writers is most likely propagandistic hagiography to salve the wounds of repeated incursions into Palestine by Mesopotamian powers.
The case of Solomon's fiction rests upon the dearth of archaeological and documentary evidence accorded to him. Quoting Isserlin, Kenneth Humphries notes that neither archaeological evidence, nor historical references in the large corpus of Assyrian and Egyptian state records mention either Solomon or his father David.
On the face of it, this lack of evidence would be a strong prima facie case against Solomon's historicity. However, Peter James, an antiquities historian, provides an alternate explanation contradicting this assumption, arguing that a lack of references to Solomon was an Egyptian propagandistic device for demeaning Syrio-Palestinian political leaders.
James argues that the Egyptian record is devoid of specific names of its political adversaries in this region because it was the Egyptian way of cursing defeated enemies, and oftentimes done in a ritualistic way in which effigies of the vanquished were destroyed, the belief being that they would have no afterlife due to their names not being uttered.
On the other hand, James admits that this practice was largely restricted to the Levantine territories, whereas Libyan and Nubian defeated leaders were frequently mentioned by name, perhaps due to respect for their antiquities - something which the Egyptians did not accord to the Israelis and other peoples to the north.
The same practice is observed in domestic conflicts of dynastic succession in which cases the memories of the predecessors are erased according to the principle that history belongs to the victor.
So in a way, James is arguing for having one's cake and eating it too, namely that the rule of effacement was restricted to the Levant whereas other regions were treated in an opposite fashion - an instance of special pleading, if you will. But there is more to the story.
So if ancient historical records are bereft of Solomon's name - aside from the rather hagiographic and propagandistic Jewish scriptures - is there any archaeological evidence to vindicate his existence? The answer is possibly yes.
Ancient ruins in and near Megiddo show significant large scale buildings in accord with the Biblical record if one lowers the dating of ancient history by up to 250 years. Even more persuasive are examples such as the Stepped Stone Structure at Jerusalem which are also suggestive of alleged Solomonic construction. Such an adjustment of dates might reconcile the Biblical accounts with the ruins. But is this modification justified?
James published a rather controversial but ground breaking book, Centuries of Darkness in 1991, which argues from multiple disciplines that ancient history is troubled with too many contradictions which are resolved reasonably well with a lowering of orthodox dates by up to two and half centuries.
One of the conflicts benefitting from such an adjustment is that of Solomon and the archaeological record. The Late Bronze Age structures at Megiddo, Jerusalem and elsewhere then fit with what is recorded about the United Kingdom monarch in the Bible, and with what is known about Egyptian history, particularly where the cryptic Shishak is concerned.
So while there is no smoking gun connecting any of the ruins to Solomon, a picture emerges which makes the Solomonic story - most likely a minimalist version - plausible. But there is a twist.
Solomon, as James proposes, through marriage to pharaoh's daughter, was a vassal king to Egypt. With Hiram and other Levantine potentates, Egypt maintained suzerainty over the region which it claimed as far as the Euphrates.
This relationship with Egypt may explain the story of Jeroboam fleeing to Egypt when his usurpation of the throne failed, a tale which Humphries dismisses as an improbability.
Solomon's position as a client to Egypt explains many anomalies in the Biblical accounts. For starters, it explains why Solomon could be said to rule over a vast territory extending to the Euphrates - but it was in the name of the Egyptian empire as a vassal king - not as an independent sovereign.
The many mind boggling marriages of Solomon also have an ember of truth as the marriage of Solomon to pharaoh's daughter described in I Kings accounts for Solomon's elevation to viceroy in the Egyptian court. When their patron was eclipsed or subjugated by successive Mesopotamian powers, the northern and southern kingdoms' positions became ever more precarious, ultimately resulting in conquest and a brief deportation to Assyria and Babylon.
Finally, the symbiosis between Egypt and Israel explains the many importations from the former into the latter's vocabulary, religion, and culture. It appears to us that the deep relationship between Israel and Egypt has many more implications for Israeli and Jewish history, with the whole of Jewish recorded history, as flatulent and fanciful as it is, a quest for achieving independence and renown in its own right.
Before closing, we have to address an anomaly presented by Solomon's alleged marriage to pharaoh's unnamed daughter. If James' effacement theory is correct concerning Egyptian chronology, then how does one explain the absence in Egyptian records of the king's daughter's marriage to his vassal prince? It makes no sense, and thus does injury to the theory.
Having come this far, Humphries' main objection to Solomonic history still stands - there is no temple, but on the other hand, by looking in a different historical age as James suggests, it might be discoverable or plausible, though its Biblical embellishments are surely the work of a venally pious imagination.
Reference
Kenneth Humphries, Solomon? - The Emperor with no Clothes, Jesus Never Existed (website), nd, source(King Solomon? – The Emperor with No Clothes (jesusneverexisted.com), accessed 4/24/2021)
James, P., 2015a. “Kings of Jerusalem at the Late Bronze to Iron Age Transition – Forerunners or Doubles of David and Solomon?” [ 4.5M], in P. James & P. G. van der Veen (eds), Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology. Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge 26-27 March, 2011 (BAR International Series 2732). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 236-257. source(Kings of Jerusalem at the Late Bronze to Iron Age Transition – Forerunners or Doubles of David and Solomon? (centuries.co.uk), accessed 4/25/2021)
No comments:
Post a Comment