Comments on: King David: Fact or Fiction?

By: Darren Thompson

Darren Thompson — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:46:03 +0000

I have written a book on biblical history that you may be interested in. The name of the book is “The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate”. Presently, biblical history uses the events of the Bible and the theories of secular historians to develop the biblical timeline. I take a unique approach in my book by using only information from the Bible to develop the biblical timeline. By doing this I have uncovered several historical questions. Did the Persian Empire only last 21 years or over 200 years? Is there a 300 year period in Egypt’s history, shortly after the Biblical exodus, in which Egypt did not have a Pharaoh? Was Ahasuerus of the book of Esther, claimed by experts to be Xerxes, actually Cyrus? My book can be viewed on lulu.com at the following address: http://www.lulu.com/dmthompson

Thanks,

Darren Thompson

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:45:59 +0000

One hardly needs the Amarna tablets to prove Jerusalem was a major center… the MB walls around the Gihon found by Reich/Shukron take care of that… not to mention the earlier finds by Shiloh. But then that’s not really the issue… the issue is that there is next to no tenth century at Jerusalem… Coogan’s logic that if Jerusalem is important in the Bronze Age, it’s probably important in the Iron I/IIA leaves something to be desired… there are lots of cities that come and go from the regional scene as Jerusalem appears to have done.

Incidentally, the radiocarbon results from the Dor excavations support Finkelstein’s lower chronology. Coogan can claim that the majority don’t support Finkelstein only because the majority of biblical scholars are attached to North American bible colleges and seminaries with more than a slight vested interest in the chronology. Critical archaeologists and scholars remain divided, I think, just like the data itself. This is not to say I hold a position one way or the other… for my part, I think more work is needed… the chronology issue is far from resolved and the debate should remain vigorous.

By: Tyler F. Williams

Tyler F. Williams — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 19:07:01 +0000

While I agree with you that there is some good evidence for the existene of a King David, I’m not so sure that I would write off Finkelstein too quickly. He is a noted archaeologist and rather than use arguments based on his politics or other hidden motivations, I would think you would need to deal with his interpretation of the evidence.

In regards to Jesus, I’m not sure that anyone really doubts his historical existence (there are extra biblical references to Jesus, such as the Roman historian Tacitus or Pliny the Younger, etc.). What is the issue with Jesus is whether he is who the early church and the New Testament says he is, i.e., the crucified and risen messiah. That, IMHO is a matter of faith.

Thanks for your comments.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:31:10 +0000

What you forget to say is that Finkelstein is an Israeli belonging to the Israeli left whose only goal is to diminish as much as possible Israel’s claims on the land of Israel! His claims on David are just that, another ploy of the Israeli left to diminish the strength of the Israelis’ claims on the land of Israel.

There are enough valid proofs of the existence of David.

For your information, the Christians are on a quest to assess if the historical Jesus really existed!

With millennia separating the time these people lived, it is probably extremely hard to assess rationally the truth of what their lives were and if they existed.

But in the case of David at least, there are proofs. In the case of Jesus, there no valid proofs at all except the stories written in the New Testament! These stories of the New Testament could all have been made up!!