Originally Posted by
Anakarsis
There is mention to Saul, Solomon and David in any contemporary source? If it is, i´m out of update on the subject.
Hebrews were NOT Aramaic, ethnically speaking. That is widely proven by different evidences. My professor of Ancient Eastern history believes that they are a fusion group, with some Hurrean elements, and relates their origin with the word "habiru" used in Egypt to name nomadic groups hostile to them inhabiting in the road to Levant (and we should remember that for the Pharao, anyone besides him is a "bandit"). You can disagree with this theory but anyways this is based on the fact that the Aramaic are only ONE element in the Hebrew ethnocultural complex. I was not aware of the differences in ADN, but it did not surprises me.
Besides, being an Atheist is not direct related to intend to prove that the Bible is wrong. The Bible is just a secondary authority on the subject mainly because it was written many centuries after the end of the Bronze Age by transcription of oral tradition, so it have approximately the same value as a historical source as the Illiad (that was not "wrong" in the literal sense, the discovery of the Kingdom of Wilusa proves that). Uncovering the accuracy of the Biblical references is not going to make me believe in the christian god more than uncovering the accuracy of the Illiad could make me believe in Zeus. The only thing proven is the effectivity of the oral transmision as a keeper of history and tradition for a given people. Trying to prove that the Bible is wrong is equally anti-cientific than trying to prove that it is rigth.