Wednesday, January 15, 2014



Did David Have A Kingdom?

January 15, 2014
Mountain Brook Baptist Church

            It is sometimes fascinating to get backstage and see what it takes to make a play come off so seemingly effortlessly.  Sitting in the audience and seeing only what takes place on the stage in front of us does not give us the proper appreciation for the myriad operations required to stage a professional play.  The lights come on right on cue;  the scenary rolls out for each new setting; costumes seem only fitting; lines are said as if they were something that just came to mind.  But if one looks behind the stage and follows the development of such a production from original script to final stage, the logistics, artistry and months of hard work and rehearsal are mind boggling to the lay person.  This same insight applies to  many professions, perhaps to all of them.  Few things are simple these days.
            Few of us ever get the chance to go "backstage" into a biblical scholar's study to gain an appreciation of what it takes to bring fresh understandings of our Bible to books and sermons.  I'll leave the process of bringing new understandings to sermons to Dr. Dortch, but I'll try to go behind the covers of that new book in the bookstore on the History of Israel. In this session, we'll look behind the normally closed door of the scholars who are writing the history of Israel (and shaping our understanding of what God has done in and through that history).
            If a typical Christian lay person gives any thought to what is required to write a textbook about the history of Israel, she might think that writing such a history is a relatively simple matter.  After all, we do have the Bible.  Presumably all one needs to do is summarize the massive materials housed in the Old and New Testaments, especially the Old Testament.  Admittedly, there is a lot of material there and it does have to be woven together, but the task at first glimpse seems not impossible.  Like the play on the stage, the books make the history seem fairly straightforward, especially the books that are written for consumption in Sunday School and in popular television dramas.  A look behind the scenes tells us a different story.
            Let me share with you first some broad brush stroke pictures of how we got to today in the study of Israel's history and then we'll look at one particular issue--the issue of describing David's kingdom--where there is rather vigorus debate going on among the scholars as we speak.

 The Big Picture
            Obviously, the first histories of Israel were written by the biblical writers.  The book of Genesis describes the very ancient beginnings of Israel and the patriarchs whom Israel claims as ancestors.  Exodus tells us about the event that forever changed Israel.  Slaves in Egypt had what they described as a miraculous delivery.  The exodus became for Israel much of what the cross became for Christianity;  God delivered them.  Joshua and Judges give us stories about the struggle to find a homeland and the stories of heroic figures of the early days in the land.  And then there are the two "histories" in Samuel/Kings and Chronicles.  Samuel/Kings tells the story of David and his dynasty using a formula derived from Deuteronomy as a guide.  The formula says that if you obey God you will be blessed and if you do not you will be cursed.  Each king is judged by the historian according to the formula.  There weren't many who were blessed and the disaster of exile by the Babylonians is the final judgment on the whole nation.  Many years later a new history we call Chronicles was written in the conviction that David was God's chosen and that there was hope for a future beyond exile.  The biblical histories told stories which Israel accepted as fact, but they are not histories in the modern sense, histories that require primary evidence of events.    Not long after the time of Jesus, a Jewish historian named Josephus summarized the biblical account for the Romans and all who came after them.  Josephus, however, could offer a first hand account only of events during his own lifetime.  The rabbis who became the authors of the Mishna and the Talmud were consumed with the Law but did not write histories.
            It was not until the eighteenth century and afterwards, primarily in Germany, that scholars began to study the Bible using the same tools they used to study secular literature.  A century later German scholars were using comparative religions to help them understand the development of the Bible and the history of Israel.  What later became sociology began to contribute to the understanding of tribal communities like the twelve tribes of Israel.  And in the nineteenth century German scholars discovered a key to unlocking the age of the biblical narratives.  Jews had for centuries attributed the first five books to Moses and the Psalms to David and Proverbs to Solomon, but it became clear that it wasn't that simple. The great traditions of Moses had been treasured by Hebrew people across the ages, and the ages had put their stamp on the way the traditions were presented.  The Bible tells us that the book of Deuteronomy was "found" in the temple in the 600's B.C. when it was renovated.  That discovery enabled those who wrote Samuel/Kings to write their story using the formula of blessing and curse found in Deuteronomy.  The stories were old but the frame in which the stories were told had to date to a time after Deuteronomy became known.  It gradually became clear that both the northern and the southern kingdoms had separate ways of telling the stories  of the patriarchs.  When the northern kingdom was taken over by foreigners, the northern stories were taken to the south and kept alongside the southern stories.  Eventually they were woven together.  Slowly scholars were putting together a timeline on which they could place all the contents of the Old Testament and, thus, begin to understand what was oldest and what was much later.  The Germans led the way.
            It wasn't until a new tool came along, however, that things began to change rapidly.  The tool was archaeology applied to biblical sites.  In the late nineteenth century headlines around the world shouted the news that the fallen walls of Jericho had been discovered and that evidence of the flood had been found in Babylon.  Both discoveries were later proven not to be what they were thought to be, but  suddenly there was light on the past.  Nineveh, with its rich treasury of pictures, shed light on  what Israelites looked like and what they suffered at the hands of the Assyrians.   And ancient hills in Israel itself began to yield a treasure chest of walls and pottery that attested to life as it was lived throughout the period of Israel's history.  Suddenly, and especially in America, the history of Israel seemed to be clear.  In the middle of the twentieth century, young seminarians all over America were introduced to  G. Ernest Wright's book, The God Who Acts, based on the archaeological work of the famous W. F. Albright and Israeli archaeologist. There were now two major ways of looking at Israel's history:  one could base a history on comparative religion and the chronology of the biblical texts or one could base a history on the hard evidence of archaeology.  The stones spoke loudly to Americans anxious to have evidence that the Bible was, indeed, historical.   While classical archaeology had been around for a century or more, biblical archaeology was in its infancy. 
            And that sets the stage for a debate that rages this very day among biblical scholars.  The debate concerns the kingdom of David.  While the Bible clearly paints David as a king who ruled over two kingdoms, north and south, and who put together an empire that stretched from northern Galilee to the southern Sinai, there was --at least unil very recently--no stone uncovered anywhere in the territory of ancient Israel that clearly said "David slept here."  In fact, there was no stone anywhere with David's name on it.  The evidence from archaeology seemed to be debatable, and debated it has been.  As always there are at least two sides to every debatable issue and, as always, each side seeks to lable the opponents with demeaning  names.  The names in this case are "minimalist" and "maximalist."

The Kingdom of David
            While the different sides of the debate about the historicity of David and his kingdom have roots that go back two centuries, the current dialogue between scholars spilled into public view in the early 1990's.  One group concludes that the biblical account of David's kingship is not supported by physical evidence from archaeology.  This group concludes that the biblical accounts were written at least 500 years after David lived and have been influenced by theology, the belief that God chose David as king and made an everlasting covenant with him.  The other group asserts that archaeological evidence does support the core account of David and his kingdom.  They assert that after allowing for the theological purpose of the narratives it is still possible to detect places and events that fit well with the external evidence.  Thus, as usual, scholars have looked at the evidence and come to different conclusions.  The names assigned to these two positions were given by their opponents, not chosen by the proponents themselves.  Thus those who think the biblical account meshes well with archaeology call their opponents "Minimalists."  The "Minimalists" have in turn used the term "Maximalist" for the side that sees more historical value in the narratives of the Old Testament.  Before we look at some of the scholars and what they have written it should be noted that being a "minimalist" is not the same as being an atheist or a person who is not religious.  It is quite possible for a person of faith to examine historical data and come to a conclusion that a biblical narrative is not consistent with external evidence. 

The Minimalists and Their Works
            The persons often associated with the view that the biblical narratives cannot be used to write an objective history of Israel are associated with the Universities of Copenhagen in Denmark and of Sheffield in  England.    Philip R. Davies (Sheffield) published a book in 1992, "In Search of Ancient Israel," which brought the debate to the general public. Davies argued that there were three different meanings of the word "Israel." He used the term, the "historical Israel," to refer to what existed in the tenth century B.C. which in his view was very, very small and not an organized kingdom.   But there is an idealized Israel created by the biblical authors writing 500 years or more after David's time.  Davies calls this "biblical Israel."  The  third Israel he calls "ancient Israel."   It has been created by modern scholars over the past century or so by interpreting the archaeological data in the light of the biblical narratives.
            A second scholar also associated with Sheffield University, Keith Whitelam, published  The  Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History  in 1996.  He charged that scholars had written the history of Israel as if Judah and Israel were the only entities in the region, leaving out all the other Palestinian peoples. This, he argued, supported the contemporary claim to the land of Palestine by the descendants of Israel, while keeping biblical studies in the realm of religion rather than history.  In a more recent work (2006?), The Death of Biblical History, Whitelam responded to critics of the minimalist position in this way:
For what lies at the very heart of the death of biblical history debate is not just an argument about methodology—particularly the relationship of the biblical texts to archaeology—but a stark choice about the nature of history and what counts as history... . Although they might justify the adjective “biblical,” their attempts to represent the ancient past are very limited in scope and can hardly be described as history.
Thus this scholar argues that the writing of the history of Israel has been shaped by the influence of both Jewish and, later, German nationalists who either consciously or unconsciously described the ancient "nation" of Israel like their own nations.
            Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copehagen published his The Israelites in History and Tradition  in 1998.  Like Whitelam and Davies he believes that most of the biblical narratives were written at least 500 years after David's time and cannot be used to write a history of Israel.  He relies primarily on archaeological evidence and thinks this evidence portrays a slow growth of Israelite society, not a relatively swift expansion under a king like David.   When archaeology produces artifacts that the maximalist group cite as proof of David's existence as the head of a kingdom, Lemche dismisses the artifacts either as fraudulent or as misinterpreted.  He does not find them to support a kingdom of David in the tenth century B.C.
            The last scholar of the minimalist group we'll have time to mention is Thomas Thompson also of the University of Copenhagen.  His 1999 book was The Mythic Past:  Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel.  He concluded that "the Bible's language is not an historical language. It is a language of high literature, of story, of sermon and of song. It is a tool of philosophy and moral instruction."  Thompson began his career with a dissertation on the historicity of the patriarchal narratives in 1971 that concluded that then current biblical archaeology had not established the historicity of the founding figures of Israel.  His later works have come to the same conclusion regarding the kingdom of David.  He understands all Old Testament narratives to be very late, perhaps as late as the second century B.C. some 800 years after David's era.[1]
            Thus in summary, the minimalist position is that we have no sources before 500 B.C. to confirm the existence of an organized kingdom led by David.  They see little if any archaeological evidence for Jerusalem being a large city and a capital of a kingdom.  They stress that there are very few, if any, references to David from archaeological sites.  The biblical accounts are very late and reflect a theology centered in David which doesn't present an accurate picture.

The Other Side of the Argument: The Maximalists

            On the other side of the debate about David's kingdom one could pick from several archaeologists and scholars.  Two archaeological sites stand at the heart of the matter and we will focus on what was found rather than who found it.  The two excavations involve the northernmost biblical site in Israel, Dan, and a town mentioned in the Bible as "Sha'arayim," ("Two Gates" in English). [2] 
            The excavation of Dan has produced literally thousands of artifacts which offer us new insights into life in the northern kingdom during the tenth century  B.C.--the time of David.  A well preserved city gate with a platform on which a judge (or a king) would have sat while holding court "in the gate" was uncovered.  A temple was discovered that may well have been the one in which Jeroboam, the first king of the north, placed his "golden calf" to provide an alternative to the Jerusalem temple.   But the find that has been the center of controversy since 1994-95 when it was published is the "Beth David" (House of David) inscription.  A stone with an inscription was shattered into pieces when the city was destroyed.  The inscription had been placed in Dan by the king of Damascus (Syria) to commemorate his defeat of the Israelite and Judean kings who were allied against him.  In making this statement the Syrian king (probably Hazael) says that:
[And I killed ...]ram son of [...]
8'. the king of Israel, and I killed [...]yahu son of [... the ki]/ng of
  9'. the House of David. And I made [their towns into ruins and turned]
10'. their land into [a desolation ...]
11'. others and [...Then...became ki]/ng
12'. over Is[rael...And I laid]
13'. siege against [...][6]
The archaeologists think the reference is to Joram, son of Ahab, King of Israel, and Ahaziah, son of Joram of the House of David, but the most significant part of the inscription is the reference to "the House of David."  For the very first time, this reference to the "House of David" is a clear reference to the dynasty of David .  The dating of this discovery  places the reference to David in the early tenth century and  to most scholars-- with the exception of the minimalists--proves that David did indeed control an Israel that went as far north as Dan.  If this is the case, the contention of the minimalists that David ruled no more than a small city state if he ruled anything at all is clearly proven wrong.  While the majority of scholars agree that the Tel Dan inscription  does exactly this, minimalist scholars remain unconvinced[3], noting that the reading may be a fraud and even if legitimate, is not necessarily to be read as "House of David."
            A second and much more recent excavation carried out over the last five years at a place west of Bethlehem known as Khirbet Qeiyafa has produced further evidence that the minimalist's positions are wrong.  Qeiyafa is a site that was only occupied during the tenth century.  It was not destroyed and re-built many times as were most biblical sites.  Thus everything in the city dates to the time of David.  The surprising discovery at this site was its double walls, a type of construction known as "casemate" walls, which had fortified gates on two sides of the city.  Since almost all cities had only one entrance gate that had to be defended, it was not difficult to identify the site with a town mentioned in two biblical passages by the name of "Two Gates" (in Hebrew, Sha'arayim).  David's battle with Goliath is set in the hills outside Sha'arayim!  Inside the double walls the archaeologists discovered a very large set of buildings that were obviously an administrative center with a large storage area (to hold wine and grain sent in as taxes).  One of the buildings would have been the residence of the king when he was present in Sha'arayim.  The discovery of a shard of pottery with writing on it that is consistent with tenth century Hebrew makes the dating of the city very precise.  The dating was further confirmed by Carbon 14 analysis.  Taken all together, the existence of Sha'arayim in the tenth century indicates that David had fortresses overlooking the Philistine plain which provided protection for Jerusalem.  At this point, most scholars with the exception of the minimalists have concluded that this evidence ends the debate about whether David had a kingdom.  Minimalists still insist that there is nothing in the city that makes it a Davidic fortress, noting that if we did not have the biblical record to help us we would have no reason to assign the city to a Davidic kingdom.
Conclusion
            There is doubtless truth on both sides of this debate and, as is normally the case, the ultimate resolution of the issues will probably end up somewhere in the middle with contributions from both groups.  On the one hand, Christians have been much too eager to accept every discovery of an archaeologist as evidence that the Bible is true.  Many of these discoveries later tend to have been misinterpreted.  On the other hand, those who minimalize the biblical narratives have doubtless erred in exactly the opposite direction, basing their reluctance to accept any biblical narratives as having historical value on the obvious theological elements in them.  We must remember that "truth" and "historicity" are not synonyms.  Truth can be conveyed in non-historical stories as Jesus demonstrated with his parables wonderfully.  We must also remember that our faith is not in the Bible but in the God who speaks to us in the Bible. 






[1] If the biblical narratives "had been written in the Persian period, as Davies claims, surely they would reflect conditions of that era, and some anachronisms would give them away. I challenge Davies to show any “Persian” features -- ideas, institutions, Aramaic terms, material culture items, etc. -- that fit anything we know archaeologically of the Persian era in the provenance of Palestine. If Davies really wants to reconstruct a plausible Persian-period context, he must master the archaeological data. Yet in his 1992 book, he cites the basic handbook, Ephraim Stern’s The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 B.C. (1982), once, without discussion."  William G. Dever, "Contra Davies,"  The Bible and Interpretation,  January, 2003.
[2] The city appears in the city list of Judah's tribal inheritance, after Socoh and Azekah (Jos 15, 36). After David killed Goliath, the Philistines ran away and were slain on the “road to Sha'arayim" (1 Sam 17:52). In the city list of the tribe of Simeon, Sha'arayim is mentioned as one of the cities "unto the reign of David" (1 Chr 4:31). The name means "two gates" in Hebrew
[3] Philip R. Davies ," 'House of David' Built on Sand:  The Sins of the Biblical Maximazers,"  Biblical Archaeology Review 20:04, Jul/Aug 1994.   " As it turns out, neither claim made for the Tel Dan inscription—that it contains the name “David” and that it contains the term the “House of David” as a reference to the kingdom of Judah—is factually true."   "It is worth noting that no Assyrian inscription reads “king of the House of Omri,” nor does the equivalent phrase occur in any Biblical text. The restoration of the first two letters of the word for king is purely conjectural."  "In our search for its meaning, one thing is sure. We will get nowhere until we can see the difference between what a text says, what it might say and what we would like it to say. If being a “Biblical minimalist” means refusing to see what is not there, then I prefer to remain a minimalist, though I resent the inaccurate and sneering epithet. I submit that this is far preferable to the stance of the “Biblical maximalists” who, in matters of the Bible and archaeology, place the Bible before both archaeology and the conventions of scholarly argument."



No comments:

Post a Comment