24 thoughts on “David and Solomon Built Temples, Trump Can’t Even Build a Wall – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. ‘…The First Temple was built originally by by Kings David and renovated by his son, Solomon…’

    It’s curious to hear you, of all people, retail this bit of mythology. The First Temple has exactly as much evidence attesting its existence as King Arthur’s Table does. Less, since there were literate peoples running around the Palestine of the period who said nothing at all about this wonder of the age, while not many folks in Dark Age Britain could write. Theoretically, there could have been a Round Table — it’s decidedly improbable there was a First Temple.

    I mention your remark because Zionist ideology is like whack-a-mole. People will concede one part of it isn’t true — then retail some other part as if it is. No, there was no ancient Jerusalem as described in the Old Testament, and no, modern Jews are not descended from ancient inhabitants of Palestine, and no, there was no expulsion, and no, Jews did not spend millennia waiting for the happy day when they could rush back to ‘Israel’ — ‘Israel’ usually referred to the body of believers rather than the land anyway. No, Jews in 1945 did not have nowhere else to go, and no, most of them didn’t go to Israel because they wanted to, and no, they still don’t. Finally, no, Israel is not a legitimate state. It’s ignored every single legal stricture binding it from the moment it came into being.

    But people will grant one bit of that — and then assume the rest is all true. It’s ALL false, and there’s no justification for Israel at all. All that happened was that a minority of assimilated European Jews tried to adapt the precepts of nineteenth century racial nationalism to their particular case, even though it was an awful fit.

    Even if you are aware of all this, to refer to the First Temple as if there’s reason to believe it actually existed is to confer legitimacy on the Zionist argument. You might as well agree that the Germans did need Lebensraum in the East, or it was awfully nice of the Conquistadors to go to all that trouble to help the Indians obtain eternal salvation. It’s buying into the mythology that justifies the action. Israel isn’t a nice place that has made a few mistakes; it’s a falsehood right to the core. Don’t pretend the lie is a truth — not even part of the lie.

    1. Physical evidence of Solomon’s Temple is scant, but may well exist. And Colin, please consider that a full, detailed and scientific excavation of the Temple Mount has never occurred on account of political and religious considerations.

      “Five years after the Camp David talks, Barkay’s sifting project turned up a lump of black clay with a seal impression inscribed with the name, in ancient Hebrew, “[Gea]lyahu [son of] Immer.” In the Book of Jeremiah, a son of Immer—Pashur—is identified as chief administrator of the First Temple. Barkay suggests that the seal’s owner could have been Pashur’s brother. If so, it’s a “significant find,” he says—the first Hebrew inscription from the First Temple period to be found on the Mount itself.

      Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-is-beneath-the-temple-mount-920764/#TmS7dxPHQ7H5tSM6.99


      1. ‘…Physical evidence of Solomon’s Temple is scant, but may well exist….’

        This is a bit like Bertrand Russell’s teapot orbiting the sun. It’s entirely possible there is one, but it’s improbable.

        Consider this mighty Temple at the heart of an extensive empire. There are Assyrians, Egyptians and things, all stomping around the region, and all leaving written records but no one even notices this great state. Conquerors sweep through, and describe their siege of this and their sack of that — but never refer to Jerusalem.

        Then, to top it off, there is no archeological evidence of it, nor any contemporary written documents.

        The suspect is obviously innocent, your honor. There’s no reason to believe the crime even took place.

        …but the real point is that meantime, some other part of the Zionist argument will pop up and once again be claimed to be fact. It’s bizarre: we have something utterly false, nonsensical, evil, and of no earthly (or heavenly) good to anyone at all from start to finish — and yet people keep treating one element or another of it as perfectly factual and reasonable.

        1. @ Colin Wright: I note that you’ve left out the Bible itself supposing it’s not a legitimate historical record. It may be a problematic record, but it is a historical record. You may not like or trust the words written there. But they are there and they have legitimacy. One can argue about how much. But one can’t ignore that they exist as you seemingly do.

          There is no archaeological evidence? What is the Western Wall? A Crusader fortress?

          You’ve chosen to write many comments on this subject. Clearly, it’s a big deal for you. But this blog isn’t dedicated to uncovering the historical truth or falsehood of the Biblical record. So I don’t want to drown in the minutiae of this historical argument. So let’s wrap this up. You’ve said your piece. Now you’re repeating yourself. So stop commenting further in this thread.

          1. [comment deleted: when I request that someone stop commenting in a thread and they ignore that request, they earn moderation. You will be moderated. If you stop trying to publish comments in this thread & move on you may continue commenting. If you do not respect the comment rules, then future comments will not be approve for publication.]

      2. ‘…a lump of black clay with a seal impression inscribed with the name…the first Hebrew inscription from the First Temple period to be found on the Mount itself.’

        …and the problematical claims of those examining it aside, that’s all it is — a lump of black clay with a name and cryptic inscription on it. Yes, there were people living in what is today Palestine, and yes, they wrote a form of proto-Hebrew. So what? The ancient Anglo-Saxons spoke Old English. That doesn’t make them civilized parliamentarians.

        You have no problem with the notion that a mighty empire could go quite unnoticed by its contemporaries and leave behind no more conclusive proof of its existence than a name carved on a lump of clay? Sure, Jerusalem was a settled site, and sure, people inscribed things. That no more means that the First Temple was real than that we can conclude the Houses of Parliament must have been in place because London was a settled site in the sixth century and we have a reference to King Haldregar calling a folk moot among the people of the region.

        Consider ancient Troy — decidedly not a great empire. In spite of that, it did exist; its neighbors definitely noticed it, and the site was conclusively located. But Ancient Israel and the First Temple? All the signs are that it warn’t there — whatever the good book (set down five centuries after the fact) says. There’s no more reason to think it was there than we would insist on dating the Houses of Parliament to the sixth century.

        As I say, if we’re to treat David and Solomon as historical realities, we might as well agree that the Indians of North America are descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel (the Book of Mormon says they are), King Arthur’s Round Table was real (Mallory wrote about it), and the German people carry the genes of a lost super-race (hey: the Nazis said they did). Every bit of unsupported mythological, religious, and ideological nonsense is hereafter to be picked up and plugged into arguments as fact.

        The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that David and Solomon, the First Temple, and the whole ancient state of Israel were confected in the sixth century or so, assembled by a cult that itself only clearly appeared about that time, and that I suspect was somehow associated with the Persian conquest. It’s utterly mischievous to treat them as facts and base an argument on them. They’re MYTHS, myths that appear to lack any substantial foundation at all, and myths that may well have been invented virtually out of thin air to meet the theological and ideological needs of a cult that only arose half a millennium after the supposed events in question.

        If you want to believe them, have at it. I don’t argue with Mormons. However, at least the myths the Mormons choose to subscribe to are relatively harmless. One can’t say the same for all that ancient Israel nonsense. It’s been put to service in aid of a very unfortunate endeavor.

        So one can’t be indulgent about it. One has to call a spade a spade; or more relevantly, a fairy tale a fairy tale.

    2. @ Colin Wright: Unlike you, I know better than to absolutely certain of the historical truth of anything concerning the ancient Middle East. But I choose to believe the historical record as far as I find it credible. You’ve made sweeping and, as far as I’m concerned, largely unfounded statements. I should clarify: I don’t accept your statements about the temple itself or the existence of ancient Jerusalem. Nor do I accept the claim that there is “no justification for Israel. I think your other statements about exile, return and the genetic connection between modern & ancient Jews may have more validity.

      Nor does believing the Temples existed confer legitimacy on a Zionist argument. Of course, there are pro-Israel advocates who do use such issues to confer legitimacy on some of the worst of Israeli policies. But clearly I vehemently disagree with them. Unlike David Duke, no hasbarist has ever used my statements to confer legitimacy on Israeli crimes or injustices. If they do, they will hear from me.

  2. Going by the actual textual and historical evidence, the whole thing (Solomon’s Temple, the supposed Jewish state of the era, and so on), was concocted for ideological reasons out of fragments of Mesopotamian and Levantine myth sometime in the sixth century — that is to say, about four hundred years after the supposed events.

    We might as well accept the Mormon account of how the North American Indians are the lost tribes of Israel. The argument is as reasonable, the evidence as convincing, and the documentation as conclusive.

    1. @ Colin Wright: Stuff & nonsense. No evidence offered. Simple certitude. That’s not evidence. Nor do I actually want any in your case. I can see you’re a true believer and I have no interest in letting this thing drone on & on ad nauseam.

  3. [comment deleted: you’ve now gone on & on & on on this subject over 5-6 comments. This blog is not an archaeological-historical debate about ancient Israel. Those arguments belong somewhere else.]

  4. You guys are so busy arguing about the Bible that you forgot the Bible says Solomon built it. Not David.
    Not sure where renovation is mentioned.

      1. You are mistaken and it isn’t me who says it but the Bible or rather I should say – GOD.
        Samuel II 7 13
        “He (not David) is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever”

        I think you would like the explanation some came up with which is that David withdrew too much blood so even though it was enemies blood, David can’t build the temple anymore.

        1. @Ginger: David intended to build the temple. But didn’t. However, the ark was housed in the tabernacle, which i mistakenly thought of as a primitive version of the Temple. It was more of a tent than a building.

          1. I guess you are so sure of yourself, even against the word of GOD you have some sort of way to say “I’m right”.
            Did David tell you he intended? How does a Jewish scholar such as (self claiming) yourself make such an amateur rookie basic mistake?

            Do you ever question yourself or you have all answers?

            God bless you!

          2. @ Ginger: Cut out the “word of God” shit. Leave God out of this. Your God, whoever he is doesn’t interest me in the least. Do this again & I’ll kick your ass clear outa here.

            Gee, how did I make a mistake? Like you’ve never made one. I make mistakes the same way every other person but you makes them. I wrote something based on my memory and didn’t bother to fully research what I wrote before I published. So sue me.

  5. Note that the train station mentioned here us not part of the light rail system (which goes on the other side of the old city), but rather the planned expansion of the heavy rail system vis tunnel (to hey plan to keep going from the city entrance to way under the old city)

    This project is slated to be completed in the 2040’s at the earliest, and is considered somthing of a joke in Israel…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *