MORE ON KING DAVID: Inspired by the recent publication of David and Solomon by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, A.P. writer Richard N. Ostling surveys the recent controversy over the historical or legendary status of the two kings. It mostly covers old ground, but there is this summary of a recent BAR article by archaeologist and biblical scholar Michael Coogan:

In the July-August issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Michael Coogan of Stonehill College, editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible, contends that Finkelstein and Silberman "move from the hypothetical to the improbable to the absurd."

Finkelstein's revised chronology is "not accepted by the majority of archaeologists and biblical scholars," Coogan asserts, citing four scholarly anthologies from the past three years.

Coogan also thinks "David and Solomon" downplays the significance of the Amarna tablets, which include correspondence to Egypt's pharaoh from a 14th-century Jerusalem king. Even if archaeological remains at Jerusalem are lacking, he writes, the tablets indicate that long before David, Jerusalem was the region's chief city-state, with a court and sophisticated scribes.