• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Solomon Statesmanship sucks?

Was Solomon a wise and prudent statesman, in your opinion?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • No

    Votes: 4 80.0%
  • No, but better than Donald Trump! :p

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5

Spiderman

Veteran Member
People were more than sick of King Solomon's unjust taxes, and it wasn't even primarily to construct the Temple, since King David already gathered most of the material needed and even had the workmen in place (1 Chronicles 22:2-4).

"Rather it was the construction of a second palace that became the root of the problem. Solomon was not content to live in his father’s house and built a huge palace to house his 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 7:1-11). It took 13 years to construct, compared to just 7 years for the temple."
https://opentheword.org/2013/07/22/king-solomons-lame-excuse-for-high-taxes/

It seems King Solomon was enjoying a new wife or concubine every day of the year, and living in total luxury, indulging in constant carnal (erotic) pleasures, while people labored by the sweat of their brow and paid money from their hard labors to cover a bunch unnecessary expenses that largely just enabled him to have costly, lavish orgies with his hundreds of wives and concubines.

Scripture declares him to be the "wisest man who ever lived", but was he really demonstrating much wisdom?

He loved foreign wives and God didn't want him to marry "heathen women".
1 Kings 11:2
They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love."

Some of his wives worshipped other Gods, eventually drawing his heart away from the God of Israel to Polytheist gods/goddesses. I'm not to opposed to that behavior, because it sounds to me like he was just being multicultural and respecting what other people hold as sacred. Polytheists can be good, compassionate, charitable, nonviolent, sensitive people, and I'm not fond of Scripture dehumanizing them the way it does.

But it does seem odd, that having such favors from God, being one of God's prophets, being so blessed, and being the "wisest man to ever live", he would not fall into so many "unwise" errors.

Do you have any thoughts about King Solomon?
He is quite an unusual "wise man of God".


 
Last edited by a moderator:

74x12

Well-Known Member
People were more than sick of King Solomon's unjust taxes, and it wasn't even primarily to construct the Temple, since King David already gathered most of the material needed and even had the workmen in place (1 Chronicles 22:2-4).

"Rather it was the construction of a second palace that became the root of the problem. Solomon was not content to live in his father’s house and built a huge palace to house his 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 7:1-11). It took 13 years to construct, compared to just 7 years for the temple."
https://opentheword.org/2013/07/22/king-solomons-lame-excuse-for-high-taxes/

It seems King Solomon was enjoying a new wife or concubine every day of the year, and living in total luxury, indulging in constant carnal (erotic) pleasures, while people labored by the sweat of their brow and paid money from their hard labors to cover a bunch unnecessary expenses that largely just enabled him to have costly, lavish orgies with his hundreds of wives and concubines.

Scripture declares him to be the "wisest man who ever lived", but was he really demonstrating much wisdom?

He loved foreign wives and God didn't want him to marry "heathen women".
1 Kings 11:2
They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love."

Some of his wives worshipped other Gods, eventually drawing his heart away from the God of Israel to Polytheist gods/goddesses. I'm not to opposed to that behavior, because it sounds to me like he was just being multicultural and respecting what other people hold as sacred. Polytheists can be good, compassionate, charitable, nonviolent, sensitive people, and I'm not fond of Scripture dehumanizing them the way it does.

But it does seem odd, that having such favors from God, being one of God's prophets, being so blessed, and being the "wisest man to ever live", he would not fall into so many "unwise" errors.

Do you have any thoughts about King Solomon?
He is quite an unusual "wise man of God".
He started out wise but changed later on and became corrupt. He did bring unequaled economic prosperity to Israel. He became the middle man in a lucrative chariot and horse trade between Egypt and the Hittites in the north. This was very beneficial to Israel because on one hand it made lots of money and secondly he always had a ready supply of chariots and horses for his army. A win win. He also built a trade fleet in the Red Sea. This way he bypassed the usual route to India/the far east by Mediterranean merchant ships. They had to go all the way around the enormous continent of Africa to get into the Indian ocean. Solomon's ships could sail almost straight to India from the Red Sea. That fleet proved extremely lucrative. If you know your history; then you know that Christopher Columbus was attempting to find a route to India by sailing around the world. So apparently Solomon had what Columbus wanted.

Solomon was an economic and political genius. He became the richest king of his day. He was also a genius in the science of the time and wisdom/eastern philosophy.

As he grew older he became corrupt it's true. He multiplied foreign wives. Built pagan temples for his wives(he broke the commandments for the kings of Israel in the Torah) and started to oppress the people. Forcing them to work for him and using taskmasters to make them work.

All the stuff about sexual orgies is speculation on your part. He certainly had many wives but we don't know that he had orgies.

So, in conclusion in spite of his obvious shortcomings; he was well known for being wise for a good reason. He was a genius like the world rarely; if ever sees. I would suppose that he surpasses Einstein and others who are famous.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
He started out wise but changed later on and became corrupt. He did bring unequaled economic prosperity to Israel. He became the middle man in a lucrative chariot and horse trade between Egypt and the Hittites in the north. This was very beneficial to Israel because on one hand it made lots of money and secondly he always had a ready supply of chariots and horses for his army. A win win. He also built a trade fleet in the Red Sea. This way he bypassed the usual route to India/the far east by Mediterranean merchant ships. They had to go all the way around the enormous continent of Africa to get into the Indian ocean. Solomon's ships could sail almost straight to India from the Red Sea. That fleet proved extremely lucrative. If you know your history; then you know that Christopher Columbus was attempting to find a route to India by sailing around the world. So apparently Solomon had what Columbus wanted.

Solomon was an economic and political genius. He became the richest king of his day. He was also a genius in the science of the time and wisdom/eastern philosophy.

As he grew older he became corrupt it's true. He multiplied foreign wives. Built pagan temples for his wives(he broke the commandments for the kings of Israel in the Torah) and started to oppress the people. Forcing them to work for him and using taskmasters to make them work.

All the stuff about sexual orgies is speculation on your part. He certainly had many wives but we don't know that he had orgies.

So, in conclusion in spite of his obvious shortcomings; he was well known for being wise for a good reason. He was a genius like the world rarely; if ever sees. I would suppose that he surpasses Einstein and others who are famous.
I gave your post a thumbs up! I don't think Solomon was as brilliant as you make him out to be, but you certainly give a good explanation of why he was. :)

I was joking about orgies,
But when you have that many wives and concubines and are filthy rich, and known for your grave disobedience to God, as well as heathen practices, it seems highly likely!
 

sooda

Veteran Member
He started out wise but changed later on and became corrupt. He did bring unequaled economic prosperity to Israel. He became the middle man in a lucrative chariot and horse trade between Egypt and the Hittites in the north. This was very beneficial to Israel because on one hand it made lots of money and secondly he always had a ready supply of chariots and horses for his army. A win win. He also built a trade fleet in the Red Sea. This way he bypassed the usual route to India/the far east by Mediterranean merchant ships. They had to go all the way around the enormous continent of Africa to get into the Indian ocean. Solomon's ships could sail almost straight to India from the Red Sea. That fleet proved extremely lucrative. If you know your history; then you know that Christopher Columbus was attempting to find a route to India by sailing around the world. So apparently Solomon had what Columbus wanted.

Solomon was an economic and political genius. He became the richest king of his day. He was also a genius in the science of the time and wisdom/eastern philosophy.

As he grew older he became corrupt it's true. He multiplied foreign wives. Built pagan temples for his wives(he broke the commandments for the kings of Israel in the Torah) and started to oppress the people. Forcing them to work for him and using taskmasters to make them work.

All the stuff about sexual orgies is speculation on your part. He certainly had many wives but we don't know that he had orgies.

So, in conclusion in spite of his obvious shortcomings; he was well known for being wise for a good reason. He was a genius like the world rarely; if ever sees. I would suppose that he surpasses Einstein and others who are famous.

Jerusalem was still a tiny village of about 2,000 people in Solomon's day and most of the building that is attributed to him was built under King Omri. He didn't have a grand kingdom.. The copper mines attributed to Solomon belong to Egypt and then the Canaanites.The grand kingdom was probably written with the memory of how fabulous Babylon was by comparison.

When Solomon got older his foreign wives let him astray to false gods and the scribes came out against him. He died in 931 BC and not long afterward Judah and Israel split. That was perhaps when the scepter departed Judah.

Or, It would not be until the time of David that royal authority would come to Judah. Through David and his son Solomon Jerusalem (not Shiloh)

This may help put things in perspective.

Jerusalem was then confined to the small spur south of the Temple Mount known today as the City of David. As Geva reminds us, even then Jerusalem “was the center of an important territorial entity.” From this period, the area includes a massive fortification system that has recently been excavated. Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres. Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.” (Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)

The next period Geva considers is the period of the United Monarchy, the time of King David and King Solomon and a couple centuries thereafter (1000 B.C.E. down to about the eighth century B.C.E.). In David’s time, the borders of the city did not change from the previous period. However, King Solomon expanded the confines of the city northward to include the Temple Mount.

This increased the size of the city to about 40 acres, but the increase in population was not proportionate since much of this expansion was taken up with the Temple and royal buildings. “It is likely that Jerusalem attracted new inhabitants of different social classes,” Geva tells us. “Some of these people came to reside in the city as a consequence of their official and religious capacities, while others came to seek a livelihood in its developing economy.”

Geva estimates the population of the city at this time at about 2,000. (Previously, other scholars had estimated the number of people living in the city at this time as 2,000, 2,500 or 4,500–5,000.)

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City - Biblical Archaeology Society
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Jerusalem was still a tiny village of about 2,000 people in Solomon's day and most of the building that is attributed to him was built under King Omri. He didn't have a grand kingdom.. The copper mines attributed to Solomon belong to Egypt and then the Canaanites.The grand kingdom was probably written with the memory of how fabulous Babylon was by comparison.

When Solomon got older his foreign wives let him astray to false gods and the scribes came out against him. He died in 931 BC and not long afterward Judah and Israel split. That was perhaps when the scepter departed Judah.

Or, It would not be until the time of David that royal authority would come to Judah. Through David and his son Solomon Jerusalem (not Shiloh)

This may help put things in perspective.

Jerusalem was then confined to the small spur south of the Temple Mount known today as the City of David. As Geva reminds us, even then Jerusalem “was the center of an important territorial entity.” From this period, the area includes a massive fortification system that has recently been excavated. Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres. Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.” (Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)

The next period Geva considers is the period of the United Monarchy, the time of King David and King Solomon and a couple centuries thereafter (1000 B.C.E. down to about the eighth century B.C.E.). In David’s time, the borders of the city did not change from the previous period. However, King Solomon expanded the confines of the city northward to include the Temple Mount.

This increased the size of the city to about 40 acres, but the increase in population was not proportionate since much of this expansion was taken up with the Temple and royal buildings. “It is likely that Jerusalem attracted new inhabitants of different social classes,” Geva tells us. “Some of these people came to reside in the city as a consequence of their official and religious capacities, while others came to seek a livelihood in its developing economy.”

Geva estimates the population of the city at this time at about 2,000. (Previously, other scholars had estimated the number of people living in the city at this time as 2,000, 2,500 or 4,500–5,000.)

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City - Biblical Archaeology Society
Well he did have a grand kingdom. Jerusalem was only the capital. It was small because it was only recently taken by David's army. Basically, David needed a city not directly controlled by any one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Because he wanted to appear as king of all Israel; not just Judah. His first capital was Hebron which was a city controlled by the tribe of Judah. So instead he chose Jerusalem a Jebusite city. The Jebusites were traditional enemies of Israel. But, just because Jerusalem was small doesn't mean Solomon had a small kingdom. He wasn't ruling a city state kingdom. The Israelites were a spread out tribal people. Farmers and shepherds. Not city states. Most likely Israelite cities such as Hebron were larger than Jerusalem at first.

As for calling Jerusalem a village; that's a bit misleading. Yes it was small in population, but politically powerful and wealthy. The control center of a large empire at the time.

Shiloh was where they set up the tabernacle before Jerusalem.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Well he did have a grand kingdom. Jerusalem was only the capital. It was small because it was only recently taken by David's army. Basically, David needed a city not directly controlled by any one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Because he wanted to appear as king of all Israel; not just Judah. His first capital was Hebron which was a city controlled by the tribe of Judah. So instead he chose Jerusalem a Jebusite city. The Jebusites were traditional enemies of Israel. But, just because Jerusalem was small doesn't mean Solomon had a small kingdom. He wasn't ruling a city state kingdom. The Israelites were a spread out tribal people. Farmers and shepherds. Not city states. Most likely Israelite cities such as Hebron were larger than Jerusalem at first.

As for calling Jerusalem a village; that's a bit misleading. Yes it was small in population, but politically powerful and wealthy. The control center of a large empire at the time.

Shiloh was where they set up the tabernacle before Jerusalem.


Look .. Here's you basic problem.

2 million Israelites left Egypt with their livestock which at minimum would have been 10 goats per family..

Yet all of Palestine never had a population of more than 6 or 7 hundred thousand. Most villages were under 300 people.

Hebron was even smaller than Jerusalem...Like Nazareth it was less than 200 people. Jerusalem was NOT powerful or wealthy. It was a hilltop fortress on the trade route in bandit territory.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Look .. Here's you basic problem.

2 million Israelites left Egypt with their livestock which at minimum would have been 10 goats per family..

Yet all of Palestine never had a population of more than 6 or 7 hundred thousand. Most villages were under 300 people.

Hebron was even smaller than Jerusalem...Like Nazareth it was less than 200 people. Jerusalem was NOT powerful or wealthy. It was a hilltop fortress on the trade route in bandit territory.
Exactly how would you even know how wealthy Jerusalem was in Solomon's time? According to the Bible Jerusalem was invaded multiple times after Solomon and all the wealth was stripped to either buy off invaders or looted by the invaders themselves. I believe you're just going off of guess work here.

Archaeological evidence points to a powerful Israelite kingdom during the time of Solomon and David.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
He started out wise but changed later on and became corrupt. He did bring unequaled economic prosperity to Israel. He became the middle man in a lucrative chariot and horse trade between Egypt and the Hittites in the north. This was very beneficial to Israel because on one hand it made lots of money and secondly he always had a ready supply of chariots and horses for his army. A win win. He also built a trade fleet in the Red Sea. This way he bypassed the usual route to India/the far east by Mediterranean merchant ships. They had to go all the way around the enormous continent of Africa to get into the Indian ocean. Solomon's ships could sail almost straight to India from the Red Sea. That fleet proved extremely lucrative. If you know your history; then you know that Christopher Columbus was attempting to find a route to India by sailing around the world. So apparently Solomon had what Columbus wanted.

Solomon was an economic and political genius. He became the richest king of his day. He was also a genius in the science of the time and wisdom/eastern philosophy.

As he grew older he became corrupt it's true. He multiplied foreign wives. Built pagan temples for his wives(he broke the commandments for the kings of Israel in the Torah) and started to oppress the people. Forcing them to work for him and using taskmasters to make them work.

All the stuff about sexual orgies is speculation on your part. He certainly had many wives but we don't know that he had orgies.

So, in conclusion in spite of his obvious shortcomings; he was well known for being wise for a good reason. He was a genius like the world rarely; if ever sees. I would suppose that he surpasses Einstein and others who are famous.

Solomon wealth and power was greatly exaggerated, Much of the building that is attributed to Solomon was the work of King Omri.

Further, Solomon had no copper mines. They copper mines were Egyptian and then taken over by the Canaanites.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I gave your post a thumbs up! I don't think Solomon was as brilliant as you make him out to be, but you certainly give a good explanation of why he was. :)

I was joking about orgies,
But when you have that many wives and concubines and are filthy rich, and known for your grave disobedience to God, as well as heathen practices, it seems highly likely!

Jerusalem was tiny and Solomon had no gold mines.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/ancient-jerusalem/

Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres. Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.” (Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Solomon wealth and power was greatly exaggerated, Much of the building that is attributed to Solomon was the work of King Omri.

Further, Solomon had no copper mines. They copper mines were Egyptian and then taken over by the Canaanites.
Proof? And Omri? That hardly even makes sense. Omri was the king of the northern tribes. Not Jerusalem. Solomon was known for making things throughout Israel, but especially in Jerusalem which was his capital.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Jerusalem was tiny and Solomon had no gold mines.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/ancient-jerusalem/

Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres. Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.” (Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)
So what? It was admittedly according to the Bible a new city and yes really small; for the Israelites. David chose Jerusalem because it was not affiliated with any one tribe of Israel. That way it could be accepted by all the tribes as the capital.

But, that doesn't mean that later on it wasn't associated with Judah.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Proof? And Omri? That hardly even makes sense. Omri was the king of the northern tribes. Not Jerusalem. Solomon was known for making things throughout Israel, but especially in Jerusalem which was his capital.

You don't follow archaeology much, do you.

Omri - New World Encyclopedia
web.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Omri
Archaeologists consider the Omride dynasty to have been a major regional power, and some of the monumental building projects attributed to Solomon by the biblical writers have recently been dated to the period of Omri's rule.

Omri
is the first king of Israel or Judah to be mentioned in any historical record outside of the Bible.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
You don't follow archaeology much, do you.

Omri - New World Encyclopedia
web.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Omri
Archaeologists consider the Omride dynasty to have been a major regional power, and some of the monumental building projects attributed to Solomon by the biblical writers have recently been dated to the period of Omri's rule.

Omri
is the first king of Israel or Judah to be mentioned in any historical record outside of the Bible.
Just as I said, Omri was king of the north. The Tel Dan inscription proves there was a separate king of the north and the southern "house of David".

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...rical-evidence-of-the-king-david-bible-story/

There is plenty of archaeological evidence to support a powerful united kingdom in the time of David and Solomon btw.

So what's funny is that you only believe in Omri because the archaeological evidence. Just wait for evidence for the other kings in the Bible and you'll believe those also. My point is we heard about Omri from the Bible first. So the Bible is being proven historically accurate.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Just as I said, Omri was king of the north. The Tel Dan inscription proves there was a separate king of the north and the southern "house of David".

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...rical-evidence-of-the-king-david-bible-story/

There is plenty of archaeological evidence to support a powerful united kingdom in the time of David and Solomon btw.

So what's funny is that you only believe in Omri because the archaeological evidence. Just wait for evidence for the other kings in the Bible and you'll believe those also. My point is we heard about Omri from the Bible first. So the Bible is being proven historically accurate.

Israel was never a powerful kingdom. It was a whistlestop in bandit territory on the trade route.

The population of all of Palestine was quite small.

Israel couldn't support a large population.. that's why before the birth of Christ there were Jewish communities in Alexandria, Aleppo, Elephantine Island, Damascus, Persia and all around the Mediterranean.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Israel was never a powerful kingdom. It was a whistlestop in bandit territory on the trade route.

The population of all of Palestine was quite small.

Israel couldn't support a large population.. that's why before the birth of Christ there were Jewish communities in Alexandria, Aleppo, Elephantine Island, Damascus, Persia and all around the Mediterranean.
You assume this because they did not have large cities like Egypt or Mesopotamia but what they did have was many villages and towns all spread out.

As for the power of the kingdom. The Bible never claims that the Jewish kingdom was particularly powerful. The height of their power was in the reign of David and Solomon who ruled a moderately sized empire for a few decades.

You deny that David or Solomon had anything special going on without any real evidence. You're just asserting and re-asserting the opinions of people who really want to deny anything the Bible has to say unless they are out right proven wrong they will continue to assert their opinions against the Bible's narrative.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
You assume this because they did not have large cities like Egypt or Mesopotamia but what they did have was many villages and towns all spread out.

As for the power of the kingdom. The Bible never claims that the Jewish kingdom was particularly powerful. The height of their power was in the reign of David and Solomon who ruled a moderately sized empire for a few decades.

You deny that David or Solomon had anything special going on without any real evidence.

You're just asserting and re-asserting the opinions of people who really want to deny anything the Bible has to say unless they are out right proven wrong they will continue to assert their opinions against the Bible's narrative.

There was NO Empire... ever.. Towns and villages may have been anywhere from 100 to 300 people.

The first period that Geva considers in his study is from the 18th–11th centuries B.C.E. (Middle Bronze Age II to Iron Age I, in archaeological terms), the period before the arrival of the Israelites.

Jerusalem was then confined to the small spur south of the Temple Mount known today as the City of David.

As Geva reminds us, even then Jerusalem “was the center of an important territorial entity.” From this period, the area includes a massive fortification system that has recently been excavated. Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres.

Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.” (Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City ...
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/.../jerusalem/ancient-jerusalem
Jan 11, 2019 · As published in Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2016. By the end of the First Temple period (the First Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E.), the walled city of Jerusalem covered 160 acres.

By that time, settlement also extended northward outside the city walls, all of which expanded the city further.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
There was NO Empire... ever.. Towns and villages may have been anywhere from 100 to 300 people.
Sorry, but you haven't made your point. You're simply asserting there was no empire ever. Since it's an absolute statement; you have to prove it's true. I choose the Bible over your assertion. I think the Bible is a more reliable source of information.

I could accept a statement from you that you don't believe there was an empire. Or even if you said you don't think there was ever an empire.

But you can't just make an assertion "there was no empire ever".
Towns and villages may have been anywhere from 100 to 300 people.

The first period that Geva considers in his study is from the 18th–11th centuries B.C.E. (Middle Bronze Age II to Iron Age I, in archaeological terms), the period before the arrival of the Israelites.

Jerusalem was then confined to the small spur south of the Temple Mount known today as the City of David.

As Geva reminds us, even then Jerusalem “was the center of an important territorial entity.” From this period, the area includes a massive fortification system that has recently been excavated. Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres.

Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.” (Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City ...
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/.../jerusalem/ancient-jerusalem
Jan 11, 2019 · As published in Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2016. By the end of the First Temple period (the First Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E.), the walled city of Jerusalem covered 160 acres.

By that time, settlement also extended northward outside the city walls, all of which expanded the city further.
So? We agree that Palestine was populated by relatively small towns and cities compared with places like Egypt which had a few large cities or Mesopotamia which had a few large cities.

Often times in history the size of a city is less important than it's actual place in history. Let's take Greece or Italy for example. Later in history they had large cities. But in the bronze age? Small cities ... yet we know the impact of such places on history. Take Athens for example. A small bronze age city but no one would say it's later history is therefore insignificant. They certainly wouldn't say Athens didn't ruled a modest empire for it's time and place.

The impact of Israel on history is obviously religious. They never had a great empire compared with Rome or Persia etc. But to deny that they had anything at all; without evidence is just nonsense. There is evidence they did rule for a time over their neighbors. Which is really unsurprising and even maybe a bit unremarkable; unless someone is completely biased against the Biblical account.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Sorry, but you haven't made your point. You're simply asserting there was no empire ever. Since it's an absolute statement; you have to prove it's true. I choose the Bible over your assertion. I think the Bible is a more reliable source of information.

I could accept a statement from you that you don't believe there was an empire. Or even if you said you don't think there was ever an empire.

But you can't just make an assertion "there was no empire ever".

So? We agree that Palestine was populated by relatively small towns and cities compared with places like Egypt which had a few large cities or Mesopotamia which had a few large cities.

Often times in history the size of a city is less important than it's actual place in history. Let's take Greece or Italy for example. Later in history they had large cities. But in the bronze age? Small cities ... yet we know the impact of such places on history. Take Athens for example. A small bronze age city but no one would say it's later history is therefore insignificant. They certainly wouldn't say Athens didn't ruled a modest empire for it's time and place.

The impact of Israel on history is obviously religious. They never had a great empire compared with Rome or Persia etc. But to deny that they had anything at all; without evidence is just nonsense. There is evidence they did rule for a time over their neighbors. Which is really unsurprising and even maybe a bit unremarkable; unless someone is completely biased against the Biblical account.

Ok.. produce a bit of scripture that says Israel or Judah was an empire. I'll wait.

What neighbors did they rule over.. Israel was a vassal state most of its history with just a very brief period of independence.
 
Top