Thank you for the question on the existence of the First Temple, “Did the “first temple” mentioned in the Bible actually exist?”
Modern scholars and archaeologists assert that the neither King David, Solomon, or the Temple that Solomon built never existed due to lack of evidence. What direct or indirect evidence for the existence of a temple?
May I suggest for one’s consideration these circumstances:
- There is no dispute that King Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians attacked and destroyed Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the state capital of that country. It would seem reasonable that the capital would have a worship center or temple in that city. Whether the depiction of that temple according to the Scripture can be challenged, but there would be a structure of a temple in Jerusalem.
- There is no dispute that the exiled Jews returned to the Promised Land. Ezra enumerated the number of Jews who first returned to land being about 43,000 (Ezra 2:64). The people who lived in the Promised Land were mostly non-Jews or Samaritans. The temple and the Jerusalem wall were torn down by the Babylonians. The central question is this: Could 43,000 men build or rebuild the Temple? The answer is possibly yes, if they lived in the city. The 43,000 men and their families returned to the homes in the Promised Land. Could the men cut the stones in the quarry, moved it, and build it? In my view, it is unlikely as the exiled Jews had to form and rebuild their homes. It is more likely that the torn down stones were reused to build the temple by the exiled Jews. The same would apply to the walls being built or rebuilt. If ruins were not available to be reused, it would have taken considerable time to build a wall.
- This is further complicated with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE and the likelihood of stones being used to build other structures by the Christians or Muslims in the intervening centuries.
- There is no dispute that archaeological research is limited or restricted at the temple mount. With the Muslims and the Jews in dispute of the Temple Mount, the verification or lack of it can not be substantiated without further excavation.
- There are some indications of artifacts being found that may or can be dated back to the First Temple. The recent discoveries of seal predates the Temple of Zerubbabel. According to Digging the land: The top 10 Holy Land archaeology stories of 2019, the report says this, “One is a bluish agate stone seal “(belonging) to Ikkar son of Matanyahu” (LeIkkar Ben Matanyahu). The other is a clay seal impression, “(belonging) to Nathan-Melech, Servant of the King” (LeNathan-Melech Eved HaMelech). Nathan-Melech is named in 2 Kings as an official in the court of King Josiah.” One may read other recent discoveries in Israel. The key point is the seal mentions, “…Servant of the King”. Depending on one’s dating, one can’t ignore the citation of a king in that seal. The exiled Jews in the 6th century had no king, so one may conclude that it was before the exile.
SUMMARY: If archaeology is given access to the Temple Mount, the question of the existence of the First Temple may be resolved or not resolved. There are indications that there were a Temple before Zerubbabel’s Temple.
For more perspectives:
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-first-temple-mentioned-in-the-Bible-actually-exist