Thanks to Mike Peatman, who has reminded me that there was a previous Independent article, by Lucy Pasha-Johnson, in which the truth of the Bible was doubted on the grounds that King Solomon's Mines have never been found.
King Solomon's Mines is a book by Rider Haggard. Not a book of the Bible. I can see how the Independent and its weirdly ahistorical researcher friends might get confused.
According to the Bible, Solomon was very rich. But according to the Independent's expert, "Successive generations of theologians and archaeologists have scoured the Holy Land looking for his capital city, palace, temple and wealth without any success."
Here's some clues. The capital city was Jerusalem. It's on the map and I believe you can even visit it. The temple was destroyed, and then rebuilt. It's under the Al Aqsa mosque - feel free to ask if you want to excavate it. His palace was made of cedar, so it's probably burned down or rotted by now. It was in the middle of a city that has been continuously rebuilt for 3,000 years, so good luck with the post holes. And his fabulous wealth? Apparently all the gold had been replaced with bronze, and that was even before the Babylonians destroyed the city and the temple and took away everything of wealth.
If you're looking for Solomon's wealth, it ain't in Israel. And if you're looking for King Solomon's Mines, they're not in the Bible.
If you want some sensible archaeology or biblical history, don't waste your time with the Independent.
Tell me that She-who-must-be-obeyed is really the Queen of Sheba.
ReplyDeleteDon't blame Lucy; the "historian" in question is a Mr Ralph Ellis, so I looked up his Amazon profile, which presumably he approves of:
ReplyDeleteBeing independent from theological and educational establishments allows Ralph to tread where others do not dare, and it is through this independence that Ralph has discovered so many new biblical and historical truths.
It surely does.
Such as Solomon: Pharaoh of Egypt; Mary Magdalene: Princess of Orange; Jesus: Prince of Edessa, and many more.
I think we can blame Lucy for suspending her journalistic faculties when someone comes up with an idiot theory.
DeleteYou are thinking of investegative journalism as used to be practised by Private Eye in its heyday (Paul Foot, etc).
ReplyDeleteYour average journalist doesn't question the source, since they are rarely qualified or indeed have enough time, to assess it; just accepts what s/he is told and writes it as the editor/owner would like.