The historical Saul

[JesusAddicted]

Please give me some extrabiblical (historical or archaeological) references to king Saul that reigned before David. The only source where I heard about him it's the Bible.

 

[buzuxi02]

I believe it's the only source. I'm not aware of any archaeological carvings or inscriptions that have ever mentioned him. I believe there is only one stone slab recently discovered that speaks of a King David.

The truth is most history concerning minor kingdoms which is over 1500 years old has very little external verification. Heck the only reason we think Herod died in 4BC is because Josephus says he died between an eclipse and a passover! There was an eclipse partially visible over Jerusalem in 4bc, that's it. It's so scant that scholars are open to a 1BC-1AD death for Herod because two eclipses more visible in the day occurred in 1bc.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Depends.

The problem is chronology. We have to reconstruct peacemeal narratives from disparate sources, as already noted.

Some have argued, most notably David Rohl, that Labaya from the Amarna letters is Saul. This requires a massive realignment of traditional dates; which Rohl makes based on a rising of Sirius and equating Shisaq with Ramesses instead of Shesonq, but that is a different argument. By traditional dates Labaya lived in the 14th century BC, but by Rohl's chronology he is in the 10th, close to Saul's probable time.

Anyway, Labaya's activities somewhat mirror Saul's. Both of their kingdoms are centred in Samaria around Gibeah. He also named his son Mutbaal which is a close etymologic cognate to biblical Ishbaal and both these 'men of baal' sons moved their centres of power to the transjordan area after their father's death. Mutbaal's letters also mention figures that might be David, Joab and Jesse based on similarity of names. It is an interesting theory, but remains speculative without more support for Rohl's chronological revision. We must remember though that the dates of near eastern history are far from set. While Rohl's chronology has a lot of problems, there are also problems with the traditional Egyptological dating. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Dating sometimes changes, as an example the fall of Nineveh has been redated 4 times in a 150 years since Assyrology first investigated the matter.

 

[straykat]

Rohl's theory on Labaya is really interesting.. and just fun to imagine. But it's my understanding that the Amarna letters are dated much earlier.

Kind of puts a sad spin on Israel of the time though.. as it makes them vassals of Egypt (what with Labaya pleading to Pharaoh), and not exactly autonomous rulers. Then again, that isn't out of the question. Perhaps they were vassals.. until David (Dua) the rebel displaced the leadership.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Please give me some extrabiblical (historical or archaeological) references to king Saul that reigned before David. The only source where I heard about him it's the Bible.

Egyptologist David Rohl identifies Saul with Labaya from the Armana Letters.

Labaya - Wikipedia

 

[straykat]

Egyptologist David Rohl identifies Saul with Labaya from the Armana Letters.

Labaya - Wikipedia

I never saw the theory that he may be Abimilech (from Judges) mentioned in that entry. That would be just as interesting. And the period of Judges seems even more in line with the primitive depiction in Amarna.

Rohl is able to paint complete pictures though, which makes him so interesting. Like the Dadua in Labaya's struggle also captured Jerusalem...which is what David did.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Rohl also posits that Egyptian chronology (to which Biblical chronology is tied) may be incorrect by a couple hundred years. He believes that the Biblical Egyptain pharaoh (who invaded Israel) Shoshenk is actually Ramses the Great.

 

[Steve Petersen]

.

 

[Steve Petersen]

.

 

[straykat]

Rohl also posits that Egyptian chronology (to which Biblical chronology is tied) may be incorrect by a couple hundred years. He believes that the Biblical Egyptain pharaohs (who invade Israel) Shishak is actually Rameses the Great.

Heh.. you got a triple post btw.

Yes, the whole gamut of Rohl's timeline is interesting.