Historical Authenticity of Roman Kings

Jul 2019
853
New Jersey
I will add, just so nobody gets the wrong idea here, that I personally believe that Solomon existed and built the Temple, although Josiah totally revamped it. Most scholars, however, don't, and since I assume caesarmagnus would agree with them I'm challenging him on that basis.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,793
Republika Srpska
I will add, just so nobody gets the wrong idea here, that I personally believe that Solomon existed and built the Temple, although Josiah totally revamped it. Most scholars, however, don't, and since I assume caesarmagnus would agree with them I'm challenging him on that basis.
I agree with your conclusion about Solomon's existence and building of the Temple, but I think the Bible exaggerated his power. The Bible was written from a Yahwist POV and Jerusalem was the center of Yahweh's cult so it is not surprising that it presented the rulers of Jerusalem as being the most powerful.
 
Mar 2015
890
Europe
A later example of Romans messing up their history:

Rome started coining money at a significant scale at 280 BC, during Pyrrhic war.
Before 280 BC, Romans might have imported and circulated foreign currency, abundant among nearby Greeks... but had they done so, they should have lost some, to be found by archeologists.
There are very few coins in Rome predating 280 BC. Proving that Romans did NOT import and circulate money. Roman economy must have been moneyless till 280 BC.
Yet the Roman historians of late Republic, 1st century BC and later, discuss of money problems in early Republic.

The flat incompatibility with clear archeological evidence proves that the 1st century BC Roman historians did not know what they were talking about, even in periods as recent as 4th century BC. Whatever the Romans of 4th century BC (when moneylessness was living standard) or 3rd century BC (when money was a recent import and moneylessness a living memory) did bother to write down in their now lost writings did not make the 1st century BC writers understand the moneylessness of early Republic, and the 1st century BC writers filled it up with anachronistic assumptions drawn from their recent past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abraham95

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,658
Australia
If you agree Solomon existed it makes the example pointless. If someone wants to take a whack at exactly how this fabrication could happen I'd be delighted to know. Seems way too implausible to me, for the reasons I explained.
 
Mar 2015
890
Europe
So: we see examples from 12th...13th century Europe how in a society where some literacy existed and some historic manuscripts circulated, thoroughly legendary accounts of past gained wide acceptance as true history - even though contradictory accounts existed and continued to circulate. When Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about King Arthur invading France in 6th century AD, few protested that Gregory of Tours did not mention such invasion, and those few were not listened to to the extent to shut down circulation of King Arthur stories.
In case of Rome, there were NO narrative histories of Rome predating Fabius Pictor. If Fabius wrote down legends, there were no sources to contradict him.
 

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,658
Australia
1) Still not seeing how that's what I asked for
2) Fabius Pictor is the first guy we know of writing about XYZ. For all we know there were 50 Fabius Pictor's who are lost to history, who he was basing his work off.