http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/solomon_qa.shtml

What evidence is there that the Temple of Solomon existed?

The only evidence is the Bible. There are no other records
describing it, and to date there has been no archaeological
evidence of the Temple at all. What's more, other archaeo-
logical sites associated with King Solomon - palaces, fort-
resses and walled cities that seemed to match places and
cities from the Bible - are also now in doubt.

There is a growing sense among scholars that most of these
archaeological sites are actually later than previously believed.
Some now believe there may be little or no archaeological
evidence of King Solomon's time at all, and doubt that he
ruled the vast empire which is described in the Bible.
[...]

http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/arch6.htm
There is little, if any, evidence of the remains of Solomon's temple
in Jerusalem today. The recent work of Kathleen Kenyon in Jerusalem
has revealed a few structures in the northern part of the city which
may be Solomonic but there is no certainty. If there are any remains
left, they would be under the sacred enclosure of the Muslims known as
the Dome of the Rock. Enclosed within this structure is a very large
rock protruding out of the ground. This sanctuary is forbidden ground
to the archaeologist. This rock may be the foundation upon which the
Holy of Holies was built. This would be a natural foundation upon
which to built. Another problem in the location of any ruins is that
the temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 B.C. Then Herod
built an extension to the south onto the foundation which existed. The
existing foundations are those built by Zerubbabel after the return
from the Babylonian exile. There is no way of determining what is
Solomonic, if anything.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/solomon_qa.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/solomon_qa.shtml

What evidence is there that the Temple of Solomon existed?

The only evidence is the Bible. There are no other records describing
it, and to date there has been no archaeological evidence of the
Temple at all. What's more, other archaeological sites associated with
King Solomon - palaces, fortresses and walled cities that seemed to
match places and cities from the Bible - are also now in doubt.

There is a growing sense among scholars that most of these
archaeological sites are actually later than previously believed. Some
now believe there may be little or no archaeological evidence of King
Solomon's time at all, and doubt that he ruled the vast empire which
is described in the Bible.



As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting
New York Times; March 9, 2002

By MICHAEL MASSING

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses.
The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never
occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho.
And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a
mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation
was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling
nation.


Such startling propositions - the product of findings by
archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25
years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But
there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss
them with the laity - until now.


The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5
million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new
Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60
years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an
interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology,
philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the
editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest
efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the
Bible as a human rather than divine document.


"When I grew up in Brooklyn, congregants were not sophisticated about
anything," said Rabbi Harold Kushner, the author of "When Bad Things
Happen to Good People" and a co-editor of the new book. "Today, they
are very sophisticated and well read about psychology, literature and
history, but they are locked in a childish version of the Bible."


"Etz Hayim," compiled by David Lieber of the University of Judaism in
Los Angeles, seeks to change that. It offers the standard Hebrew text,
a parallel English translation (edited by Chaim Potok, best known as
the author of "The Chosen"), a page-by-page exegesis, periodic
commentaries on Jewish practice and, at the end, 41 essays by
prominent rabbis and scholars on topics ranging from the Torah scroll
and dietary laws to ecology and eschatology.


These essays, perused during uninspired sermons or Torah readings at
Sabbath services, will no doubt surprise many congregants. For
instance, an essay on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology," by Robert
Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states
that on the basis of modern scholarship, it seems unlikely that the
story of Genesis originated in Palestine. More likely, Mr. Wexler
says, it arose in Mesopotamia, the influence of which is most apparent
in the story of the Flood, which probably grew out of the periodic
overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The story of Noah, Mr.
Wexler adds, was probably borrowed from the Mesopotamian epic
Gilgamesh.


Equally striking for many readers will be the essay "Biblical
Archaeology," by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University
in Jerusalem. "There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's
sojourn in that country," he writes, "and the evidence that does exist
is negligible and indirect." The few indirect pieces of evidence, like
the use of Egyptian names, he adds, "are far from adequate to
corroborate the historicity of the biblical account."


Similarly ambiguous, Mr. Levine writes, is the evidence of the
conquest and settlement of Canaan, the ancient name for the area
including Israel. Excavations showing that Jericho was unwalled and
uninhabited, he says, "clearly seem to contradict the violent and
complete conquest portrayed in the Book of Joshua." What's more, he
says, there is an "almost total absence of archaeological evidence"
backing up the Bible's grand descriptions of the Jerusalem of David
and Solomon.


The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less
settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David
Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to
"Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark
airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his
synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern
archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is
not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi
offered what he called a "litany of disillusion" about the narrative,
including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and
the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said,
archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes
of Israel - not one shard of pottery."






http://www.giwersworld.org/history.phtml

The real history of Israel
by Matt Giwer © 2000 [October 13]

<snip>

From what has been learned by archaeologists, what few particulars
there are about Egypt in Exodus are flat out wrong. The kingdom of
Solomon simply did not exist. Despite digging by Israel there is no
sign of any Temple of Solomon. Not only that the description of
Solomon is nearly identical to that a one of the Pharaohs who is well
known, making Solomon the copy.

And the Wailing Wall that is supposed to be a remaining wall of the
second temple was identified as the wall of a 17th century cemetery
some three seconds before the researcher's archaeological research
permit was pulled. That leads to the rather clear conclusion the
entire confrontation over East Jerusalem and the so called temple
mount by the Jews is no more than a superstition which has ignited the
hostilities in the Mideast.


Despite a massive archaeological search of the Sinai Peninsula when
Israel controlled it, not one sign of the millions of people and
animals which supposedly wandered there for forty years was ever
found. Should anyone ever consider the actual distances involved
between Egypt and Jerusalem it is noted it is a leisurely five days
walk away.

Just the two million Hebrews in the Exodus would form a line three
abreast with the ranks five feet apart from the Nile to Jerusalem.
That is not counting their slaves and animals, carts of possessions or
anything else. They could have moved their possessions simply by
passing them from person to person in a bucket brigade fire chain from
Egypt to Israel.

With the collapse of the Moses story the entire foundation of Judaism,
Christianity and Islam collapses. There simply no basis for them
absent Moses. Even Abraham collapses as since there was no leaving
Egypt there was no going there in the first place. But that has been
obvious to anyone who ever bothered to critically consider the story.

The story goes that seventy-seven of Joseph's relatives went to Egypt
from what is now Iraq. In a miracle of procreation they grew to 2
million in a bit over four hundred years. Yet they speak a language
native to the region of Palestine rather than Egyptian or the language
of ancient Iraq. And that language was never their native language.
That is like expecting Blacks in America to speak their native Africa
languages.

In addition to not speaking Egyptian there is no evidence of any
borrowed words from Egyptian which is truly remarkable. Nor is there
any indication of any talent, skill, or knowledge from Egypt. In fact
was archaeologists do find in the region is a quite primitive culture
with some indication the people were originally nomads, Bedouins, who
attacked and defeated the cities and settled down.

Where they came from and where they got their religion we don't know
yet. Genetic research has found those who claim to be the priests and
those who do not make that claim came from different places as the
priests have a distinctive genetic marker that could only have
developed in reproductive isolation. The book of Ezra does include
importing the religion to the region.

It is also about that time of Ezra that archaeologists find signs of
images being defaced which indicates the destruction of the old
polytheist religion. And that coincides with the time of the rise of
monotheist cults such as Zoroaster and Mithra.

Archaeologists have confirmed the people were polytheists as the Bible
says in no uncertain terms. The first commandment says clearly, no
other gods and not false gods or any other terms which would indicate
he was the only god. The term 'lord god' in the Old Testament is a
false translation of 'Yahweh Elohim.' A more correct translation is
Yahweh (personal name) of the Gods. Note the Elohim related to israEL.

Sacrificial altars are found all over the region. As inscription
referring to Astarte as the consort of Yahweh has been found. Solid
evidence that Astarte was worshiped by the women exists in the form of
idols of Astarte and her worship continuing at least into the middle
of the second century, about 150AD. What we find then is separate
cults for men and women. Comparing that to what the Old Testament is
constantly ranting about and we see it bears no relationship to the
facts.

In other words the religion we know as Judaism was not created until
sometime around or after the time of Ezra save the Astarte cult
continued well into the second century AD and not in secret but was
widespread and many places in Jerusalem. This is known by the idols of
Astarte which have been found frequently and commonly "in the shadow
of" the Temple Mount.

From carefully comparing what is written in the Old Testament to the
facts as they are know suggests they were also written around the time
of Ezra which was just after the Babylonian captivity. That explains
why Pharaoh's court and priests behave like the Babylonian court and
priests instead of like those in Egypt. There is reference in Exodus
to a city in Egypt that was not built until hundreds of years after
Exodus is supposed to have taken place.

None of this is a secret. In fact it is well known to biblical
archaeologists. Unfortunately funding for research is largely raised
from people and organizations with an interest in confirming the
Bible. Therefore the researchers have one well hedged story for their
contributors and another one for professional publications.



The supposed location of Solomon's Temple has been repeated so many
times and has been featured in context of the current fighting in the
illegally occupied territories that it is quite reasonable for people
to believe it is true. It is so ingrained the reporters don't even
bother saying it is the believed or supposed location.

And as to the Wailing Wall being the remains of the second temple that
flies in the face of another commonly held belief, that the Romans
leveled the temple when the rebuilt the city. Ridiculously inefficient
to have left part of one of the walls standing. Roman completely
rebuilt the city and brought it things like running water and
sanitation. Under what conceivable circumstances would they leave just
one wall?

In another article I point out that the entire Diaspora consists
solely of the Romans prohibiting the Judeans (not all Jews just
Judeans) from living inside the rebuilt city. Yet the common belief,
which is solely pious legend, is that they were forced to leave all of
Israel. That flat out never happened.

So Israel got started on a myth that Jews were forced to leave and had
wandered the earth without a home. Fact, they left voluntarily. And
now the current round of fighting over the mythical temple of the
mythical Solomon.

The issue can not be the second temple as by their own beliefs there
was never anything sacred in it. The Ark, judgment seat and the rest
of sacred paraphernalia had long vanished. And in light of the above,
that Moses is a total myth, so also the Exodus and the idea the sacred
paraphernalia ever existed.


http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/arch6.htm
There is little, if any, evidence of the remains of Solomon's temple
in Jerusalem today. The recent work of Kathleen Kenyon in Jerusalem
has revealed a few structures in the northern part of the city which
may be Solomonic but there is no certainty. If there are any remains
left, they would be under the sacred enclosure of the Muslims known as
the Dome of the Rock. Enclosed within this structure is a very large
rock protruding out of the ground. This sanctuary is forbidden ground
to the archaeologist. This rock may be the foundation upon which the
Holy of Holies was built. This would be a natural foundation upon
which to built. Another problem in the location of any ruins is that
the temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 B.C. Then Herod
built an extension to the south onto the foundation which existed. The
existing foundations are those built by Zerubbabel after the return
from the Babylonian exile. There is no way of determining what is
Solomonic, if anything.
+

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)


"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw

Want to know what's really going on in Iraq?
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html

The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roller Empire
The God-Awful Truth about Christian Zionism
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html





NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107