Did David Have A Kingdom:  The Maximalists

January 21, 2014

Mountain Brook Baptist Church

                  Last week we looked at the minimalist conclusions about whether David had a kingdom as described in the Old Testament.  Scholars who have concluded that the biblical narrative about David is largely legendary began making their case in about 1990 and until very recently have been gaining converts.  The evidence they used to establish their case that David ruled over a very small kingdom was largely the absence of evidence.  Until very recently, historians had not found even the name "David" in the records of neighboring states such as the Egyptians and the Assyrians.  Archaeologists had not found the name of David in any excavation in the territory said to have been ruled by David.   There were no fortifications convincingly dated to the time David ruled that had been found.  Beginning five years ago, however, things began to change as some truly remakable discoveries came to light.  The debate between the Minimalists and the Maximalists has not ended, but there now is, in the minds of most scholars, some substantial, hard evidence that David had an extensive kingdom.  We'll look at three sites that have produced the evidence.

Tel Dan and the "bytdvd" Inscription

            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" (bytdvd).   In Hebrew, the letters "byt" make up the word "house."  The same three letters appear in the name of the town of Bethlehem (which means "house of bread").  The archaeologists who excavated Dan  interpreted this reference to the "House of David" as a clear reference to a dynasty of David.  This is the very first written reference to David outside the Bible ever  found.  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, noting that the reading may be a fraud and ,even if legitimate, is not necessarily to be read as "House of David." 

            Here is the response of Philip Davies to the conclusions of the excavation team:

" 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." [1]

          So Dr. Davies has not accepted the inscription as evidence that David ruled over a kingdom, but he is now part of a shrinking minority of scholars who refuse to accept the reading "house of David" as evidence.

The Khirbet Qeiyafa Excavation

            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.  The excavator of Qeiyafa concludes that the  site  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!  The casemate walls make this site a fortress;[2]  this kind of construction is typical of fortresses built by other Judean kings.  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 inscription found in this excavation is perhaps the oldest written Hebrew yet found.[3] The dating of the site was further confirmed by Carbon 14 analysis of olive pits that were recovered.[4]  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. 

David's Palace In Jerusalem

            The third excavation that claims to support the existence of a Davidic kingdom consistent with the biblical record is the recent excavation of what archaeologist Eilat Mazar has identified as David's palace in Jerusalem.  Mazar's identification of the structure she found as David's palace has been the focal point of severe criticism by minimalists because Mazar openly stated what she expected to find based on the Bible before she began digging.  Of course, minimalists immediately dismissed her identification and especially denied that it established anything in regard to David.  At this point, however, Mazar's identification of her discovery as David's palace has gained some support in the scholarly community and I include it here as a third line of evidence supporting the biblical record while recognizing that this matter is far from settled.

            Eilat Mazar knew from previous excavations in the area just south of the temple mount that a capital that once stood on a column and some imposing rectangular building blocks suggested that there was a royal building in the area.  She also  reasoned that the biblical record contained historical information.  Listen to her own account:

Aside from the archeological discoveries there, the site fit quite well with the notice in 2 Samuel 5:17, which describes David in the City of David going down, or descending (yered), from his residence to the citadel or fortress (metzudah). The citadel or fortress to which he descended was of course the Canaanite/Jebusite stronghold, the Fortress of Zion (Metzudat Tsion; see 2 Samuel 5:7) that he had conquered a short time earlier. It is clear from the topography of the City of David that David could have gone down to the citadel only from the north, as the city is surrounded by deep valleys on every other side. It also makes sense that the Jebusite stronghold would have been located at the high point in the City of David, that is, in its northernmost section. From here, the fortress would not only command all areas of the city but would also provide for the defense of the city on its only vulnerable side—the north, which had no natural defense. If this was in fact the case, one can infer that after conquering the city, David’s palace was constructed north of this citadel (David went down to the fortress) and outside the northern fortifications of the city.

            When she had excavated the site, she found a massive building which she simply labeled the Large Stone Structure which was built upon and connected to an imposing Stepped Stone Structure.

The Large-Stone Structure, now seen as a massive structure built on a high scarp, was not just any public building, but a structure that was clearly the product of inspiration, imagination and considerable economic investment. This is clear not only from the large, impressive stones from which it was constructed but also from the 5-foot-long proto-Aeolic capital that must have once been part of the building. This exemplar is the most beautiful and elegant proto-Aeolic capital ever found in Israel, surpassing those from Samaria and Megiddo. Imagine the column that supported this capital. Then imagine the building in which such columns stood.

Based on several complex bits of evidence she dated the Large Stone Structure to David's era and concluded that this massive building was David's palace, the very one from which he looked out and saw Bathsheba. 

            Some seal impressions made by government officials in David's administration to seal a document were found associated with this large building.   The impressions came from the rings of two officials who are also mentioned by Jeremiah because he interacted with both of them.  Clearly the building was used for centuries by the kings of Judah.  Mazar calls this seal impression "our most startling find." 

            Eilat Mazar has convinced some but not all of her colleagues that the big building she found is evidence for a significant Davidic kingship.[5]  Some even suggest that the building was there when David conquered Jerusalem.  Mazar disagrees.  Others relate the building to much later periods.  Mazar disagrees.  When scholars disagree lay people just have to be patient and wait for the dust to settle.  It is clear however that Mazar's discoveries in Jerusalem may well undermine the minimalist positions even further. 

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] Philip R. Davies ," 'House of David' Built on Sand:  The Sins of the Biblical Maximazers,"  Biblical Archaeology Review 20:04, Jul/Aug 1994

[2] "So what can Qeiyafa tell us about Israel in the time of King David?   The circular Iron Age city wall is composed of two parallel walls periodically divided into casemates—a so-called casemate wall. This fortification wall is more than 2,200 feet (700 m) long and 13 feet (4 m) wide. Some of the megalithic ashlars in this wall weigh almost 5 tons. Altogether, more than 200,000 tons of stone were needed to construct this wall. It would take a complex, highly organized society to build a wall like this." Hershel Shanks, "Newly Discovered:  A Fortified City From King David's Time," Biblical Archaeology Review  (Jan/Feb 2009).

[3] Since the writing on the piece of pottery is so difficult to read, it is not certain that it is Hebrew.  It shares some words with Hebrew but may be older than Hebrew as such.  Thus one scholar:  "Although nothing precludes the identification of the language as Hebrew, neither can a compelling case be made for the conclusion that it is Hebrew."  Rollston, Christopher A. “What’s the Oldest Hebrew Inscription?.” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/Jun 2012, 32-40, 66, 68.  http://members.bibarch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=38&Issue=3&ArticleID=2 (accessed 1/16/2014)

[4] It should be noted that respected archaeologists have questioned the carbon  14 dating of the site. See Israel Finkelstein and Eli Piasetzky,  " Khirbet Qeiyafa: Absolute Chronology," Tel Aviv Vol. 37, 2010, 84–88.

[5] See Nadav Na’aman, " The Interchange Between Bible and Archaeology:  The case of David’s Palace and the Millo, Biblical Archaeology Review  (Jan/Feb 2014) for a recent scholar's assessment.