Did David and Solomon really exist?

No. Literally no archaeological evidence from the time or textual attestation before the Persian enslavement (i think?). They were heroic characters to look back to in a time of hardship.

>They're probably culture heroes. Mythical amalgalations of what were really unremarkable petty chieftans around the Jerusalem area.
Most gentiles hear the "David the child killing eight foot tall Goliath with his slingshot" story. They don't here the actual Jewish myth in which David is the 7 foot tall perfectly chiseled superhero king who brutally murders the twenty foot tall Goliath.

No, I meant that there were originally probably a story of say, a king of Jerusalem having a struggle with one of his war leaders and regretting promising his daughter to the guy, and a story about defeating the Philistine champion, and a story about the great court harpist, etc, and then they later got amalgamated together an attributed to David, who might or might not have existed and might or might not have been anything remarkable.

Oh, I understand, I was just making a barely coherent comment on the difference in the Christian interpretation of Jewish mythology in the context of Christian soteriology and theology and what the actual Jews themselves view the myth as meaning.

pretty sure they found a King David inscription. they prob existed but wildly exaggerated

David was probably a petty warchief in Judah who tried to seize the united kingdom, got BTFO by Saul, sent into exile, came back after Saul got BTFO, killed Saul's male line descendants, and seized the throne. He dealt with rebellions and wars for the rest of his life. He also had court scribes change the record so he is exonerated for his perfidy. David was pretty scumbaggy and even the Bible can't cover up the foulness of his deeds.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/3331221/Pottery-shard-lends-evidence-to-stories-of-Biblical-King-David.html

"The tiny shard was unearthed at the site where the Bible says the shepherd boy David killed the giant Goliath.
It is said to feature the oldest-ever Hebrew inscription, predating the famous Dead Sea Scrolls by at least 850 years.
Researchers have not yet been able to decipher the full text of its five lines but they have translated the words for "king", "judge", and "slave," suggesting it was written by a trained scribe in the king's court.
The lead archaeologist says the shard and the fortress-city in which it was uncovered are rare evidence of the biblical kingdom of David.
In Christian and Jewish tradition David became a great king of the Jews and founder of Jerusalem.
The experts said the latest finds suggested the area was home to a powerful civilisation rather than a small tribe of little importance
"This is the revolutionary aspect in our excavations," Yosef Garfinkel, the lead archaeologist in the case and a professor at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, told the Daily Telegraph. "It is the first time in Israel that you have a fortified city from the kingdom of David. This has never been found before."
The pottery shard, with its five lines of inscription in a proto-Canaanite script that is a predecessor of Hebrew, was found during the excavation of the Elah fortress at Khirbet Qeiyafa, just south of Jerusalem.
The fortress is thought to have been a checkpoint guarding a main route between the Israelites and territory controlled by the Philistines. About 600 square metres (718 square yards) have been excavated, revealing the remains of a 10.5-metre-high (11.5 yards) gate and a city wall about 700 metres (765 yards) long."

part 1

The pottery shard has been dated to as early as 975BC, based on burned olive pits found nearby that have been carbon-dated at Oxford University.
Mr Garfinkel said the discovery of the fortress, close to the large Philistine capital of Gath, suggests the Biblical tale of David and Goliath was in fact a metaphor for frequent battles between people of the Elah fortress and the neighbouring Philistines.
As in almost everything in the Middle East, the find carries political connotations. The excavation has been funded in part by an organisation called Foundation Stone, which supports archeological sites that strengthen the Jewish people's ties to the Holy Land.
However sceptics have warned excited researchers may be interpreting too much too quickly from this ancient bit of clay.
"This take us back to the days of conducting archaeology with a Bible in one hand and a spade in the other," said Israel Finkelstein, warning that while the site is significant it should not be used to interpret Biblical stories as reality, in part because the written record came at least three centuries after the events could have taken place. "It's an important dig. However we have to calm down before we start jumping to sentimental, Biblical conclusions."
Mr Garfinkel said the findings are preliminary and that excavations at the site will continue for about a decade."

Part 2

So, pottery was found from the tenth century BC with some pretty common words on it that someone tried to tie to David specifically because of the Bible? That's really not as interesting as you're implying, and Finklestein's comments in that article seems pretty accurate. Nothing about those sherds imply anything about David; even the guy arguing for a connection (who is paid by a pretty biased organization) doesn't make a direct connection and only really implies a vague dating connection. Even from that article, it seems like his main argument is that the story was a metaphor. The really cynical part of me wants to argue that the only reason the connection was even brought up, however tangential it is, was to please his sponsors. Things like that happen all the time.

Maybe this is easier to see because I'm an archaeologist and I know how proof works in that field, but that article means pretty much nothing to me. It certainly doesn't prove any connection to David. And before the shitpost reply happens, that's also what Garfinkel is basically saying.

>I guy named Israel Finkelstein is a skeptic in Jewish archeological finds
What fucking universe do we live in

Despite what /pol/ would tell you, Jews are not a hivemind, and often are each other's harshest critics.

It's a Jewish trick.

Christ existed, Christ completes that Davidic line, so David and his line necessarily had to exist.

Kek No I know, his name is just so unbelievable though.

>Christ
Who?

Literally difficult to think of a Jewier name. Maybe "Israel Rabinowitz", aka "Israel, son of a Rabbi".

He was born in 1949. His parents were probably being incredibly patriotic.

Probably. The stone stele has already been mentioned, but I think the book of Samuel is very interesting - it reads like an apologetic for David. Like, all these people around him keep dying, but the book goes out of its way to explain how he had nothing to do with it (except for Uriah the Hittite)

> 1 Samuel 25: 37 In the morning, when the wine had gone out of Nabal, his wife told him these things, and his heart died within him; he became like a stone. 38 About ten days later the Lord struck Nabal, and he died. 39 When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Blessed be the Lord who has judged the case of Nabal’s insult to me, and has kept back his servant from evil; the Lord has returned the evildoing of Nabal upon his own head.” Then David sent and wooed Abigail, to make her his wife.

> 1 Samuel 27: 0 When Achish asked, “Against whom have you made a raid today?” David would say, “Against the Negeb of Judah,” or “Against the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites,” or, “Against the Negeb of the Kenites.” 11 David left neither man nor woman alive to be brought back to Gath, thinking, “They might tell about us, and say, ‘David has done so and so.’” Such was his practice all the time he lived in the country of the Philistines. 12 Achish trusted David, thinking, “He has made himself utterly abhorrent to his people Israel; therefore he shall always be my servant.”

One more off the top of my head:

> 2 Samuel 3:
> 2 Samuel 3: 27 When Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gateway to speak with him privately, and there he stabbed him in the stomach. So he died for shedding[h] the blood of Asahel, Joab’s[i] brother. 28 Afterward, when David heard of it, he said, “I and my kingdom are forever guiltless before the Lord for the blood of Abner son of Ner. 29 May the guilt[j] fall on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house; and may the house of Joab never be without one who has a discharge, or who is leprous,[k] or who holds a spindle, or who falls by the sword, or who lacks food!” 30 So Joab and his brother Abishai murdered Abner because he had killed their brother Asahel in the battle at Gibeon.

Yeah, if I had children born in the 1780s, they'd probably all be along the lines of "George Washington user" or "Abigail Adams user".

But it was through Joseph? Wasn't Jesus Joseph's wife's son?

What's the relation?

Jesus is Joseph's son as well as God's son. Hypostatic union.

>Christ existed
yes

>Christ completes that Davidic line,
retcon by gospel authors lel

>Jesus was born of sodomy

So he was a buttbaby? Makes me think

No way in hell the actual Constantine posted that

Why do people treat David like a great king but not Omri?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omrides

literalists always ruining secular and objective historical discussions. cant discuss anything without you guys shitting it up

No, he really did. It's why he left the site, or at least dropped his trip.

How had so much top soil covered these "ruins" in, what, 4000 years? Doesn't it take 10000 to make an inch? The Canadian shield is barely beneath the surface

That varies incredibly according to area. I've been on digs in forested areas where a meter below the surface was barely 200 years old, and places in the desert where things thousands of years old were sitting on the surface. It really depends on what depositional processes (both natural and cultural - how much garbage people dump on top of something makes a difference, too) are going on. Since it was at a location that used to be in a fortress, and where people have lived near for thousands of years, it's not unreasonable to assume it was covered up pretty easily through a combination of the wind blowing sand around and people building on top of it.

The article also doesn't say exactly how covered this fortress was. The figure it gives is the area of the site. not the depth.

there are several stories that are clearly intended to support an oral tradition, such as two mentions of why it is said "Is Saul also among the prophets?" Israel Finkelstein make a great case for the story of David and Solomon not being put into writing until the late 9th century with material based oral tradition and since then undergoing several editions that added to the story. archaeology really doesn't line up with the story of David and Solomon (especially Solomon). In David's time the entirety of Judah had an estimated population of 2000 with Jerusalem being a backwater town with only a couple hundred inhabitants that probably only controlled of the immediate surrounding region. hardly the center of an empire or a center of scribal activity that would undertake creating the book of Samuel as propaganda for a mainly illiterate population.

David - or at least the House of David - definitely did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

David is a massive, MASSIVE "maybe".

Solomon is a definite "no".

Well yesterday they found more proof.
There were copper mines discovered with a donkey's excrement which date to 3000 years ago. It was also the same place where the pottery was found.

We don't know yet, at least not via archelogy. One thing to note is that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Skeptics used to point at the Hittites and their pre-Roman use of iron as made up bullshit until we, you know, dug up the Hittites and their iron.

>I don't get it?

but you do. that's the point. that a man who was wise and just still corrupted himself and his people in his old age. The queen of sheba seduced him and corrupted him enough to throw God out of the temple and the kingdom and replace Him with her homeland's god.

the point is that even the wisest man, son of David and all, can still be corrupted without vigilance.

David is a similar story as well.

absolutely beautiful story telling and a cornerstone of the whole Tragic Hero trope

>Solomon is a definite "no".
Why?

Because there is no archaeological evidence for anything that pertains to Solomon from the supposed "Kingdom of Israel" time period.