>Last night the National Geographic Channel presented “The Lost Kings of the Bible.” The program dealt with the reigns of David and Solomon and the historicity of the biblical account.

It was a good program. The presentation was balanced and fair and both sides of the controversy were introduced without one side pushing one view against the other.

Several archaeologists participated in the program and gave brief summaries of discoveries at specific archaeological sites and the relevance of those sites to the biblical text.

Ronny Rich talked about the discovery of a tunnel that may be identified with the water tunnel mentioned in 2 Samuel 5:8 that David’s men used to enter the Jebusite city of Jerusalem.

Gila Cook showed the Tel Dan Stela and the Aramaic inscription containing a reference to the “house of David.” The Tel Dan Stela is the first document that mentions the name of David outside the Bible.

Aren Meir showed the remains of the Philistine city of Gath, the city where Goliath lived. The discovery at Gath of a broken piece of pottery containing the name of Goliath is of great significance because it reveals that the name Goliath was a real Philistine name, not a name invented to embellish the killing of a Philistine giant.

On the reign of Solomon, the program discussed the Temple and the lack of archaeological evidence for the remains of the structure and for the treasures of the Temple. The possibility that the treasures of the Temple were taken by Shishak, the king of Egypt, after the death of Solomon, is seen as a possibility.

The program also discussed the structures at Megiddo and whether the stables to house the horses belonged to Solomon or to some other king, probably Ahaz, king of Israel.

Israel Finkelstein presented his views that the archaeological evidence may be interpreted from a different perspective. For instance, he said that Goliath’s armor as it appears in the biblical text, is anachronistic because it describes the armor of Greek soldiers of the 7th-5th BCE. He also believes that the “Solomonic gates” at Megiddo do not reflect the work of Solomon but were built much later than the 9th BCE.

Over all, the presentation was fair. I am sure that the program will be presented again on the National Geographic Channel. If you did not have an opportunity to see it last night, I strongly recommend that you watch it at a later time.

Jim West has written a post that describes each segment of the program. His post is very good and presents an excellent description of each segment of the program.

Jim and I differ a little bit about the conclusion of the program. Jim wrote: “Will [the program] change any minds? I doubt it. Those finding any scrap of evidence ‘proof’ will continue to see in the ‘Goliath sherd’ and Tel Dan the proof they need. And those wishing for more substantive, less enigmatic and uncertain evidence will still have to wait for it.”

I came away with a little more positive outlook. Even though the archaeological evidence may not be conclusive, those watching the program will come away agreeing that David was a real historical person.

As for Solomon, we must wait a little longer.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Read my previous post on this topic: “The Lost Kings of the Bible: A Review”

Tags: Archaeology, David, Solomon, Lost Kings