In some ways, this absence of recognition supports the theory presented by Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman in their book David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. In this book, they suggest that archeological evidence only supports the possibility that Israel was a much smaller kingdom than we would imagine.
Zionism, Crypto-Judaism, and the Biblical Hoax
This was an excellent essay and it filled in a lot of pieces for me, geopolitically. To me, the essay in a nutshell, was the author laying all the blame on the Old Testament for Jewish maneuvers (in the 20th/21st century) to achieve and maintain the state of Israel even if it means blowing up half the world. In buttressing his argument, he used the above quoted book that apparently proves or atleast furnishes evidence to the end that the glorious kingdom of Solomon, as depicted in the Scriptures, was a complete fabrication/mythical past. He also called into question the account of the Queen of Sheba:
The scam is quite evident from the way the authors of the Books of Kings, aware of the absolute baselessness of their story, back it with the grotesque testimony of a totally spurious Queen of Sheba: (1 Kings 10:6-9)
The problem that this argument presents is that in the Matthew 12:41-42, Christ recounts to His audience that same narrative. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here
Iam not familiar with the author’s beliefs but that he might be a Christian, somewhere down, in the 590+ comments, he wished Marcion had triumphed over Tertullian. Now, if infact 21st Century archeology as presented by Finklestein and Silberman is irrefutable (I haven’t read the book so I don’t know if they have something to say about the Queen of Sheba) then it means that Christ (who as God would know better) despite knowing that parts of the narrative in Kings are a lie/exaggeration nevertheless ran with the lie as He spoke to His audience. So this left me wondering: the Christians who believe the premise of the book, how do they reconcile that with Christ’s words? I can understand people not wanting “to do” the OT or Paul and simply sticking with Christ’s words. If Christ’s words are now questionable too, what else do they have left of HolyWrit?
Someone might also argue that Christ’s statements about Solomon, when He mentions his splendor and the Queen’s trek, are forged statements inserted to corroborate the OT, I then ask: how and when does one tell which statements of Christ are false and which are legitimate.
And that is what I love about the bible. If one starts picking it apart, one inevitably ends up with nothing. The essay’s author may not have realized that in questioning one account in the OT, he would also have to believe that Christ was a liar. I have also come to the conclusion that this kind of deception is going to play a major role in the end-game. The deception being that we will all have to choose between the “evidence of the senses” or unwavering faith in the biblical text as it is.