King David - Historical King or Symbolic Ancestor?By Murray D. Hiebert"…the David of the Bible, David the king, is not a historical figure" Niels Peter Lemche, University of Copenhagen, BAR Jul/Aug 1997, p. 40. One of the most recent and heated debates about the historicity of the Bible centers around King David. Feeling that they have already 'proven' that Abraham, Jacob and Moses were not real historical people, scholars called 'minimalists' (those who see no historical truth in the Bible) have now decided to focus their attack on the next major biblical figure. The life of David is recorded in a fair amount of detail in the Bible. He was the youngest son of a shepherd named Jesse. While still a young man, David was anointed by the prophet Samuel to be the next king over Israel. Though he was still not old enough to fight in Israel's army, David volunteered to fight the Philistine champion Goliath. David's victory brought him fame and close connections with King Saul and his family. Over time, Saul became jealous of David because of his success as the commander of his army. David had married the king's daughter and Saul was suspicious that he would take his place as king. Fear and distrust motivated Saul to attempt to kill him.
This drove David and his followers out into the countryside where they hid from Saul's forces. They eventually ended up in the employment of the Philistine king of Gath. After the death of Saul, David returned to be anointed king over the tribe of Judah. He reigned in Hebron until he was made king over all Israel at the end of a short-lived civil war between Israel and Judah.
David conquered the Jebusite city of Jerusalem and a palace was built for him there. The Philistines attempted to destroy this 'rebel' but were beaten back by David's men. The Philistines ended up losing large amounts of territory and influence. Other neighbouring states attacked David but were likewise defeated. Finally, David's defeat over the Ammonites and the surrender of their Aramean allies extended David's influence as far north as the Euphrates River.
In all, David ruled as a king for just over forty years. Seven and a half of these years were spent in Hebron and thirty-three were in Jerusalem. By correlating biblical chronology with outside events, we can estimate that David ruled from circa 1010-970 BC. Despite the fact that David had a few blemishes in his personal life and that one of his sons attempted to steal the throne out from under him, he is remembered as the greatest Israelite king. His faith in God was to be the example for all the kings to succeed him.
But, as a sceptic would argue, did this king David actually exist or is he merely a literary creation of a much later time? Even if he was a real person, are the stories about him accurate or are they exaggerations or legends that had built up around him over the years?
These questions are vitally important to the integrity of the whole Bible, including the New Testament. In fact, the very promise of the Messiah is through David's lineage. This was fulfilled in the Gospels where David is listed among the ancestors of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 2:4; 3:23-37). Simply put, if David is not who the Bible says he was, then Jesus cannot be who the Bible says He was. The House of David Both the Old and New Testaments portray King David as the founder of the only legitimate lineage from which kings could come. "…The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: when your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom … I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever' (2 Samuel 7:11-13, emphasis mine). David's devotion to God had secured his family's role as kings. A 'house', as used in the ancient Near East meant a 'dynasty'. The Bible uses the phrase 'House of David' a number of times to describe David's family and successors (for example, 1 Kings 12:19-20). By extension, this phrase could also be synonymous with 'Country of Judah'.
A king named David is so important to the entire fabric of the Old Testament that to deny his existence is to deny that the Bible is true and even relevant. David was the best king, but he was not perfect. He was merely a cherished example of a godly man.
Figure 1: Fragments of a 9th Century BC Stele from Tel Dan
There were still people after the Babylonian exile tracing their lineage to him, according to many Jewish and Christian sources. If David was purely a fictional character then all these people had to have been involved in this fraud! It is simply illogical to believe that he was an imaginary character.
In 1993 and 1994 excavators at Tel Dan (near the northern border of modern Israel) discovered pieces of a monument built into an ancient wall. Though incomplete, the inscription on it refers to events in c. 841 BC. Apparently, the king of Aram erected this monument to record his victories over the Israelites.
What is most significant is that it refers to the 'king of Israel' and to the 'king of the House of David'. This monument, known as the Tel Dan Inscription, therefore confirms the existence of a historical David less than 130 years after his death (see fig. 1).
Another important inscription which dates to about the same time is the Moabite Stone. This monument was found intact in the late 1800's but much of it was subsequently destroyed. A recent study of its inscription has now recognized that a damaged word on it should also be read 'House of David'.
Finally, an inscription left by Pharaoh Sheshonq I at Karnak includes a place name "the Heights of dwt". There is linguistic support in reading dwt as David. The context of the list would place these "Heights of David" in the western portion of the Negev of Judah, in the area where the Philistine king had stationed David while he was in exile from King Saul. This monument was inscribed only forty-five years after the death of David.
Taking the evidence into account, it is only logical to conclude that archaeologically David was a real person and the first king of an important lineage! Joab Enters Jerusalem One of King David's first acts as king over all Israel was to attack the city of Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:6-9). Jerusalem had remained out of Israelite hands throughout the entire period of the Judges. Now that Israel and Judah were united, David sought to remove an enemy from the midst of the country and take for himself a neutral and strong capital.
The inhabitants of the city, the Jebusites, boasted to David that "…even the blind and the lame can ward you off…" (2 Samuel 5:6). They may have had very good reason to say that. Many years of archaeological excavation has shown that the city's main wall was probably built over 650 years prior to David's reign and was probably used for 200 years more. This 2 to 3 meter wide wall was fairly substantial and the topography of the city probably frustrated anyone attacking it directly.
Figure 2: Plan of Jerusalem's Water Systems
David realized the problem the wall of Jerusalem would give him. He commented, "Anyone who conquers the Jebusites will have to use the water shaft (tsinnor) to reach those 'lame and blind' who are David's enemies" (v. 8). Translators have long fought with the Hebrew word tsinnor. At one time tsinnor had been translated 'scaling hooks' because that appeared to make sense. However, the word gives the sense of something to do with water and recent archaeological excavations have given us a probable answer.
Jerusalem has relied on the Gihon spring for its water supply throughout history. When these early city walls were built (c. 1750 BC) a large pool was also constructed to capture the water coming from the spring. Since this pool lay down the slope from the city walls, it also needed to be protected. At least two massive towers have been found which defended the pool. These towers were probably part of a city gate complex. Since this pool system needed an overflow, a covered channel had been cut (and partially built) leading out from the spring outside the city.
David took Jerusalem but he did not have to destroy it. Is it possible that David suggested to his men that someone should sneak into the city via the channel, swim out into the pool and open the gates? Despite the risk, Joab succeeded at penetrating the city and was given the king's favour because of it. The special circumstances needed to take Jerusalem can be understood much clearer now that excavators have discovered the remains of this complex system which was in use throughout the time of David (10th century BC). By the late 8th century BC the whole water carrying system was restructured and it could probably not have been entered the way that Joab did (2 Kings 20:20). Given the fact that the Bible has presented this situation accurately, it shows the great antiquity of the biblical account. Jerusalem One of the most common arguments against the historicity of David and the existence of a United Monarchy is the lack of major archaeological finds in Jerusalem dating to the 10th century BC. If Jerusalem was not inhabited (or only sparsely) at the time of David and Solomon, then the stories about them must be fiction. However, one must not take the word of sceptics at face value without checking the actual evidence first.
Jerusalem is not the average 'tell' that archaeologists dig in. First of all, its continued occupation limits the available space to dig. Most of the buildings that the Bible claims Solomon erected are underneath the Temple Mount - quite inaccessible! The hill south of the Temple Mount (called the 'City of David' - where the most ancient remains of the city lie) continues to be inhabited. For the most part, these modern buildings and many of those that have existed in the area since David's time have been built directly on the bedrock. This has effectively destroyed the archaeological record in those areas. Since Jerusalem's buildings have always been of stone, much of the earlier structures may also have been scavenged for building materials. Though it may sound like a desperate argument, it is the truth.
Fortunately, the archaeological record is not totally lacking. Recent major excavations in the city under K. Kenyon and Y. Shiloh have found stratified (layered) deposits spanning the 12th to the 9th centuries BC, precisely the period in question. Where the ground has not been significantly disturbed by later construction, the evidence is exactly where it should be.
Part of the debate also focuses on the apparent lack of public architecture in 10th century BC Jerusalem - meaning city walls, temples, palaces, fortresses and so on. The archaeological evidence is not as meagre as some would suppose. First of all, the city wall built around 1750 BC was still visible in the 8th century BC. Portions of it were incorporated into a new city wall at that time. This means that the old wall was probably still in use when it was replaced. The topography of Jerusalem and the great strength of the wall (2-3 meters thick) are probably the reasons that these walls survived. Since the upper portion of the old wall is no longer in existence, there is no opportunity to study how often it was damaged or repaired. As mentioned earlier, the pool at the Gihon spring on the eastern slope of the city also continued to be used throughout this period.
As for public buildings, a massive stone-built slope (called the 'stepped-stone structure') has been discovered that must have supported a significant building or complex. The structure is about 90 feet high and was originally about 120 feet wide! Excavation of the interior make-up of the structure suggests that it was built in the 10th century BC, though some argue for the 11th or even 12th centuries. In any case, this structure and the building it supported were in existence at the time of David and Solomon.
In early August 2005 it was announced that an Israeli archaeologist has found the remains of a large palace or fortress in Jerusalem's 'City of David'. Although the date of the building's construction has not yet been pinpointed, it was in existence throughout the time of David and Solomon. Archaeologists have already started to speculate whether this building is the palace that King David built (2 Samuel 5:11) or part of the 'Fortress of Zion' (2 Samuel 5:7) that he captured when he conquered the city. Further excavations in this area, if possible, should give us a better idea about the extent of the building (it already covers the entire 30x10 meter excavation area) and possibly a clearer picture of when it was built.
Finally, there is a very good chance that the tombs of the kings of Judah may have been found. A series of large rock-cut chambers have been found within the limits of the ancient city. Unfortunately, they have been seriously damaged by later quarrying and are not dateable because they have been reused. Though their identification as tombs seems logical, no one can be sure because there are no royal Israelite tombs of the period to compare them with. The Bible indicates that David and the first kings of Judah were buried somewhere within the city (1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; etc.).
There is evidence that Jerusalem was inhabited. That point is clear, even though some people do not want to recognize that fact. The Bible suggests that David and his men immediately occupied the city after its capture. Therefore, the city was not destroyed. This is an important point in a city where, like Jerusalem, most of the structures were made of stone. The walls and buildings could have been built hundreds of years earlier and could have been reused indefinitely. David's Empire Another common attack against the historicity of the biblical King David is that many scholars deny that he could ever have controlled as much territory as the Bible says he did. Even many archaeologists who faithfully defend David's existence are quick to say that the Bible's record of his accomplishments is slightly exaggerated. Some of these opinions are based on Jerusalem's suitability of being the capital of an 'empire'. Others base their conclusion on the apparent lack of neighbouring countries to conquer.
The basic summary of David's accomplishments as king is recorded in 2 Samuel 8:1-14 (paralleled in 1 Chronicles 18:13): - On the west the Philistines were finally pacified and David was able to effectively contain them to their cities on the coastal plain.
- To the south the Amalekites were defeated.
- Edom to the south and southeast was also conquered and garrisons were placed in the land.
- To the east Moab and Ammon were both conquered.
- Hadadezer, king of Zobah (his dynasty was known as Beth Rehob, just like Beth David referred to Judah, see Point 44), was defeated. Some of the cities that had been subject to Hadadezer (incl. Tebah and Berothai) paid heavy sums to David and effectively became his own vassals. Tou, the king of Hamath, quickly noticed the 'new' power in the area. He sent his son to David bearing gifts and undoubtedly a treaty which allied Hamath to the House of David.
Two more points must be made. This chapter (2 Samuel 8) is merely a summary and some of the events in this list are actually described in greater detail later in the biblical account. Secondly, the list is not complete because at some point during David's life the cities of Megiddo, Beth Shan and many others near them came under the control of the Israelites. When David became king over all Israel, the country was in poor shape. Saul's defeat had shown David that he needed to do a better job defending his borders. Israel and Judah were cleaved into three parts by the Jebusites (Jerusalem), the Philistines and the Canaanites. The Bible hints that, at this point, the Philistines considered themselves to be the masters of all Canaan. To them Saul was a rebel leader who led a small army of troublemakers in the hills. Upon his defeat the Philistines would have thought they had eliminated any opposition. When David was proclaimed king and took the city of Jerusalem, the Philistines responded as any government would. They immediately sent out the army to quell the revolt (2 Samuel 5:17). By defeating the Philistines and keeping Jerusalem, David had a more unified territory and defendable borders. Without the Philistines to help them, cities such as Megiddo and Beth Shan in the Jezreel Valley (and its extensions) were probably taken without much difficulty. These victories linked the settlements of the Israelites in Galilee with those in the hill country. However, the simple acquisition of these few cities placed Israel in international politics. The main trade route now passed through Israel and there was no way around it. The rest of David's conquests parallel the victories of Saul (1 Samuel 14:47-48). Saul had to defend the Israelites living in the fringes of their territory from the attacks of the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Amalekites and even from the king of Zobah who may have been trying to extend his empire south at that time. Saul was able to protect Israelite settlements but not extend his influence over anyone. After Saul's death, these foreigners resumed their harassment of Israel.
Figure 3: King David's Empire
David's Conquests: Amalek David defeated the Amalekites in retaliation for their attack on Ziklag (David's home, 2 Samuel 30). This was shortly before he became king over Judah in Hebron. Control of the northern Negev (semi-desert where the Amalekites had lived) was important for defending Judah's southern border. Therefore, we should expect to see a strong Israelite presence there during David's reign.
The archaeological record shows that a number of fortresses were built in this area during the 10th century BC. These have been interpreted as outposts for soldiers to defend Judah's southern border. Two examples of these fortresses have been excavated at Tel Arad and Tel es-Seba' (Beersheba?). An organized government must have been active in this area to build these fortresses.
The Egyptian king Sheshonq I's (biblical Shishak, 1 Kings 14:25) campaign list (found on the walls of the temple of Amun at Thebes in Egypt) describes a number of fortresses and settlements in the Negev that he destroyed, including the fortress at Arad. We can assume that most (if not all) of the Negev sites he records were outposts on the southern border of the tribe of Judah. Edom David's men defeated the army of Edom south of the Dead Sea in the Valley of Salt. "He put garrisons throughout Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David …" (2 Samuel 8:14).
Some scholars have long argued that Edom never existed as a state before the 8th century BC. Recent excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas have now proven that there was a government of some form in Edom at the time of David. Archaeologists date the construction of a fortress there to about 990 or 980 BC, precisely the time David claims to have established garrisons there. Although the excavators seem to claim that this fortress is Edomite, it may have been built by David's men to control copper production in the area. Moab David's victories over the Moabites are not surprising considering that the Moabite Stone inscription proves that Israelites lived on traditional Moabite soil this time. In any case, Moab may have only consisted of a few strong cities during the 10th century BC. Ammon Saul had defeated the Ammonite forces under their king Nahash near the city of Jabesh Gilead (1 Samuel 11:1-11). This appears to have pacified the Ammonites and isolated them to the immediate area of the city of Rabbah (modern Amman, Jordan).
David was satisfied with the status quo and tried to start a friendly relationship with Nahash's successor Hanun by sending messengers to him expressing sympathy for his father's death. Hanun insulted the Israelite envoys and, realizing that there was going to be retaliation, he hired Aramean troops from Maacah, Tob and Zobah to protect himself. After a long siege David's men succeeded in defeating Rabbah and put its people to hard labour (2 Samuel 12:29-31).
Excavations in Ammon have shown that the area began to develop rapidly starting in the 12th century BC and reached its peak between the 9th-6th centuries BC. 9th century BC inscriptions show that while the language of the Ammonites was close to Hebrew, its written form was influenced by Aramean script. This is evidence that Ammon had close contact with Aram, like the Bible suggests (2 Samuel 10:6). Did David control Rabbah and its villages for a short time? No reason to deny it. Aram Although the Bible does not explicitly say it, Ammon was probably one of Hadadezer's vassals (a vassal is a local king who is controlled by a more powerful king). When David decided to attack Rabbah (in Ammon), he was also attacking the combined forces of Beth-Rehob, Hadadezer's Aramean empire. Ancient Assyrian texts reveal that there were a number of small Aramean states like Hadadezer's developing in the 11th and early 10th century BC. Though neither Zobah nor Beth-Rehob are mentioned by name, some of these states were active on the east side of the Euphrates River. The Bible includes that area as being under Hadadezer's influence (2 Samuel 10:16).
David may not have been looking for a fight against Hadadezer. The Aramean armies who had come to help defend Ammon were poorly prepared and fled in fear. Though the Arameans regrouped with reinforcements from Hadadezer, they were overpowered by the Israelite army. Since Hadadezer was busy shoring up his own support along the Euphrates River (2 Samuel 8:3), David hit his army at an opportune time. Also, these events all took place in or very near Israelite territory.
While still on the battlefield, some of the Aramean vassal kings surrendered to David and became his subjects. The city of Hamath acknowledged David's victory by leaving its alliance with Hadadezer and becoming (nominally) subject to David as well. Some of Hadadezer's allies in Damascus attacked David in order to restore Hadadezer's territory but David defeated them too - probably still on Israelite turf! Afterwards David put garrisons in Damascus to control this hostile area (it rebelled during Solomon's reign). In actuality, David's control over Aramean territory was established quite easily - his army barely even had to leave his own territory - and he had political control all the way from the Negev to the Euphrates River.
The empire that David established had begun to fall apart by the end of Solomon's reign. Since Israelite control did not last long, this empire did not leave a lasting impression on the surrounding nations. So far, no ancient record of David's international power has been discovered. However, the conquests of David do reflect his time. We can be confident that the biblical record of his life was based on actual historical reality. Conclusion As detailed above, there is a lot of evidence that supports that a king named David ruled within the territory where the Bible locates him at the time the Bible places him. He is no literary creation. Are the stories about him accurate? As far as we can tell, yes. There is no reason for any archaeologist to deny that he did or said the things the Bible says he did. However, common sense does not always prevail in scholarship and be prepared that the battle over David's life will go on for decades. The above article has been adapted from the book 100 Reasons to Trust Old Testament History by Murray D. Hiebert. To order this book, please contact him on our contact page.
|
