...as told in the Bible?

No.

There is no good evidence outside of the bible for these stories.

David is to the Jews what King Arthur is to the English. Both are legends that served as a source of national pride.

There is some evidence for the kingdom of David. There is a victory stone recurding a battle against David's kingdom. Difficult to date to authenticate David himself, but it does support that there was a kingdom of David. There is some other similar evidence.

Outside confirmation of biblical chronology start to appear a few generations after David and Salomon, when the kingdom allegedly had split into two smaller kingdoms. There is good evidence that there really was a kingdom of Judah and a kingdom of Israel, but they were never the grand empire that the bible speaks of (and there is no outside confirmation of them having been united). From archeology it appears that the dominant power in the region at the time of David and Solomon was phoenician Tyre (in modern Libanon) not Jerusalem. And the philistines of the time were doing pretty well and show no signs of having been subjugated by their israelite neighbours (or anyone else for that matter).

It's possible that it's stories about the phoenician king of Tyre, Hiram, that has been attributed in the bible to Solomon. But before the Assyrian invasions, the entire region remained divided into many small kingdoms. Jerusalem wasn't even a significant city until after the Assyrians had captured the northern kingdom some centuries later and many refugees had swelled it's ranks.

I don't doubt though that someone had built a temple in Jerusalem. Just because it wasn't the huge project that's described in the bible doesn't mean that there wasn't a temple there to inspire the myth. All royal capitals in the region had temples as grand as their kings could afford to make them, there is no reason to suppose Judah was different, especially taking into account centuries of rule under a Davidic dynansty claiming a special covenant with God.

This site read fairly knowledgeable. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/myth-and-reality-of-king-david-s-jerusalem

"Kingdom?"

Depends on what you consider a "kingdom."

Here, try this:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text

My understanding is that there is nonbiblical evidence for David and Solomon.

As for the stories told of them in the Bible, about Bathsheba and Goliath and all that, I'm sure 99% of it is nonsense.

midwestanon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My understanding is that there is nonbiblical
> evidence for David and Solomon.

David, yes -- one tablet with "House of David" on it, dated to be several hundred years after "David" supposedly lived.

Solomon-- no. Nothing so far. Not a single thing.

No and there wasn't an exodus from Egypt either.

I don't think David and Solomon were kings, but likely chieftans. The earliest archaeological finds may be linked to King Ahab, according to The Bible Unearthed, by Silberman and Finkelstein. I thought the book was even handed.

Hector Avalos: How Archaeology Killed Biblical History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5LdELd_0o&t=1939s

The voice of Hector Avalos is a bit thin and raspy due to a chronic respiratory illness. Very smart man, love to watch his various videos. Old Testament scholar (athiest).

When it comes to David and Solomon, all I know for sure is that their many wives and concubines were an abomination before God (Jacob 2:24) or maybe God was cool with it (D&C 132:38).

The 'bible,' for the most part is allegory.

incognitotoday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 'bible,' for the most part is allegory.

Sure, it is *now,* given that its stories have been shown to be completely false made-up stuff.

It wasn't before then, though.
How about that :)

Being Jewish converted christian all up and down my lines on many sides, one family line had an old colored jewel that was reportedly passed down through the female lines down from Solomon, and his harem, according to family tradition,

It had been redone up in the 19th century and now I think my aunt has it?

But for physical evidence the only bit I know of is the Temple wall (prayer wall), it's been standing there 3000 years.

Well, you're only off by about 1000 years... It construction started in 19 BCE (not finished before 4BCE), making it at best 2036 years old.

- Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall#Construction_19_BCE

So, that's an physical evidence for Herod's reign, not Solomon. Solomon remains a reference in the "Hebrew Bible", which isn't proof.

See Nova: "The Bible's Buried Secrets". A great 2 hour Nova about what's real and not real in the OT.

After having studied some of the translations of Sumerian and other cuneiform translations over the last few years I am convinced that the probability of the actuality of Saul, David, and Solomon is quite questionable.