It IS the consensus. Why don’t you try reading some actual archaeologists instead of Wikipedia.
It is a fact, not an opinion, that there is no archaeological evidence of a city on the Jerusalem hilltops in the 10th Century. It’s not a “theory” that there’s no city there at that time, it’s hard data.
Moreover, Judah did not have the population, the wealth or the resources to hold any power over the northen kingdom at the time. The northern kingdom was much richer and well populated. It was not controlled by Judah, and certainly not by non-existent Jerusalem. After the northern kingdom was sacked by the Assyrians and refugees poured south into Juda (increasing the population by 500%), that’s when Jerusalem happened and “Jewish” culture and mythology first began to be syncretized. This is not fringe theory. This is absolutely the mainstream consensus dictated by hard archaeological evidence.
What you are really saying is that it is not clear that there are remains in Jerusalem that were built when David and Solomon were kings. It may be that building built earlier were still in use. It may be that buildings built then were destroyed to make room for later buildings.
The Biblical Archaeology Review has run a number of articles attesting to the authenticity of the reigns of David and Solomon, and generally opposes the minimalist viewpoint.
One of the most beloved characters in the Bible is King David. Scripture says that he was a man after God’s own heart. He is revered as the greatest of all Israelite kings and the messianic covenant is established through his lineage. Despite his key role in Israel’s history, until recently no evidence outside the Bible attested to his existence. For this reason critics questioned the existence of a King David.
In the summer of 1993, an archaeologist made what has been labeled as a phenomenal and stunning discovery. Dr. Avraham Biran and his team were excavating a site labeled Tell Dan, located in northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon. Evidence indicates that this is the site of the Old Testament land of Dan.
The team had discovered an impressive royal plaza. As they were clearing the debris, they discovered in the ruins the remains of a black basalt stele, or stone slab, containing Aramaic inscriptions. The stele contained thirteen lines of writing but none of the sentences were complete. Some of the lines contained only three letters while the widest contained fourteen. The letters that remained were clearly engraved and easy to read. Two of the lines included the phrases “The King of Israel” and “House of David.”
This is the first reference to King David found outside of the Bible. This discovery has caused many critics to reconsider their view of the historicity of the Davidic kingdom. Pottery found in the vicinity, along with the construction and style of writing, lead Dr. Biran to argue that the stele was erected in the first quarter of the ninth century B.C., about a century after the death of King David…
The find has confirmed a number of facts. First, the use of the term “House of David” implies that there was a Davidic dynasty that ruled Israel. We can conclude, then, that a historic King David existed. Second, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were prominent political entities as the Bible describes. Critics long viewed the two nations as simply insignificant states.
Jerusalem Journal The New York Times Published: August 5, 2005
JERUSALEM, Aug. 4 - An Israeli archaeologist says she has uncovered in East Jerusalem what may be the fabled palace of the biblical King David…
Other scholars are skeptical that the foundation walls discovered by the archaeologist, Eilat Mazar, are David’s palace. But they acknowledge that what she has uncovered is rare and important: a major public building from around the 10th century B.C., with pottery shards that date to the time of David and Solomon…
Amihai Mazar, a professor of archaeology at Hebrew University, calls the find “something of a miracle.” He says he believes that the building may be the Fortress of Zion that David is said to have conquered, which he renamed the City of David…
The building can be reasonably dated by the pottery found above and below it. Ms. Mazar found on the bedrock a large floor of crushed limestone, indicating a large public space. The floor and fill above it contain pottery from Iron Age I of the 12th to 11th centuries B.C., just before David conquered Jerusalem.
Above that, Ms. Mazar found the foundations for this monumental building, with large boulders for walls that are about 2 yards thick and extend at least 30 yards. In one corner was pottery of Iron Age II, the 10th to 9th centuries, roughly the time of the united kingdom.
I’m saying it is clear there was no city of Jersalem before about the 8th Century BCE. There is no clear evidence that David and Solomon ever existed, though one 8th Century inscription has been found which may or may not refer to a “House of David.” Whether or not there was ever a Davidic dynasty, of sorts, (though nothing like what is decsribed in the Bible) is really of no relevance to the discussion, though.
BAR is a religious publication, not an academic journal. There actually is no such academic field as “Biblical Archaeology.”
King David
A Biography
By STEVEN L. McKENZIE
Oxford University Press
The lack of remains from the site known as the “City of David” that can be confidently connected with the time of David (ca. 1000 B.C.E.) should not be seen as decisive evidence that he didn’t exist, for several reasons. First, Jerusalem is occupied today, making it impossible to dig anywhere and everywhere in the city. So we still do not have a complete picture of the city’s occupational history. Furthermore, Jerusalem has been constantly occupied since the time of David and before. It has been destroyed and rebuilt numerous times, and each time the building materials from previous occupations were reused. It is not surprising, therefore, that few substantial architectural remains from as far back as David’s reign have been found.
Also, we know of Jerusalem's existence long before David from a set of documents known as the "Amarna letters," found at the site of el-Amarna in Egypt. They are letters written during the fourteenth century B.C.E. between the rulers of Canaanite city-states and the Egyptian pharaoh. Jerusalem was one of those city-states.
The Biblical Archaeology Review is not published by any religious organization. It has no affiliation with any religious denomination. Fundamentalists are often angered by its skepticism regarding parts of the Bible account.
JERUSALEM (CNN) – An Israeli archaeologist has discovered what he says is the earliest-known Hebrew text, found on a shard of pottery that dates to the time of King David from the Old Testament, about 3,000 years ago.
Professor Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says the inscribed pottery shard – known as an ostracon – was found during excavations of a fortress from the 10th century BC.
Carbon dating of the ostracon, along with pottery analysis, dates the inscription to time of King David, about a millennium earlier than the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, the university said…
Because the ostracon is similar to that found in other Israelite settlements, and because no pig bones were found at the site, archaeologists say the site was likely part of the Kingdom of Judea.
What Mazar has found is simply a building. Her identification of tjhe building as David’s palace is based on nothing but a tendentious extropolation made from the dating of potsherds near the site (but not actually inside the site)which cannot be proven to be contemporaneous with the building. Mazar’s dating and identification of the bulding have been heavily criticized by other archaeologists since all that can be said about the structure itself is that it post-dates Iron Age I. How long after cannot be determined. It has not at all been identified as having anything to do with David or as being from the alleged time of David. Mazar is funded by religious funamentalists (with a specific mandate to try to prove the truth of the Bible), and is one herself (she admits to doing archaeology “with a Bible in one hand”). She is not regarded as credible within mainstream ANE archaeology, notwithstanding her sensationalist press releases, and she does not have support for her identification of the structure as being related to David.
The publisher is an evangelical Christian but not a literalist. I didn’t say BAR was published by a religious “organization,” but it is, nonetheless, a religious publication posing as an academic journal. It often even pubkishes articles by real arcaheologists. It does not make things up, but it does select and frame its articles in a way designed to promote a pre-conceived agenda. It’s not a literalist agenda, but it is a religious one. BAR has also been a heavy promotor of things like the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and the James Ossuary (both proven forgeries). It does not reperesent mainstream academia, although it often pretends to. It’s not completely irresponsible in who and what it published – it doesn’t do Noah’s Ark crap, for instance – but the publication definitely has a religious agenda, it’s not a peer-reviewed academic journal and it’s often wrong.
As I said before, there is no such thing as “Biblical Archaeology.” You won’t see a real archaeological journal using that phrase.
So, probably did King David. I am not saying that his existence has been proven. I am not saying that if he existed he was as splendid as First Samuel maintains. I am saying that contrary to your assertions, there is not a consensus that he did not exist, or that he was insignificant.
This does not follow from the existence of a Hebrew language in the 10th Century.
You are right on the first point, at least. The consensus is that he did exist, but only as a minor, local warlord or chieftain (and even this much hangs on the “House of David” interpretation of the Tel Dan inscription as being accurate…something which is far from indisputable). His “significance” is in the eye of the beholder, I guess, but nobody in Judah at the time was the ruler of a large kingdom, and there was never a united kingdom of the north and south.
Incidentally, I have not advocated a minimalist position in this thread.
BAR frequently will have different scholars arguing conflicting points. Susan Laden is the publisher. She may be an evangelical Christian. I was unable to find confirmation of that on the internet. Hershel Shanks is probably Jewish. It should not come as a surprise that religious people are more likely to be interested in Biblical archaeology than religious skeptics. When you say that something is the consensus, you consensus seems limited to non believers. I do not dismiss the judgment of such people, but I do not accept it on, well on faith.
I also respect Fundamentalist Bible scholars, but I would not quote one in a debate with you. When cruising the internet for evidence that David was a Israelite king who lived 1000 BC, I looked for secular websites.
By “consensus,” I’m referring to the majority opinion of credentialed scholars in the relevant fields. Whether or not they are believers is neither here nor there. All proper scholarship is “secular,” even if the personal beliefs of the scholars are not. I’m not sure what you mean by “fundamentalist scholars,” but it’s their methodlogy that matters, not their belief.
Incidentally, purely religious discplines like theology or hermeneutics are not relevant to questions of archaeology and history.
Amen!
I heard a radio commentator blast the teachings of Scientology not on its own (lack of ) merits but because it HAS to be wrong because it doesn’t talk about accepting Jebus and the Bible says … :smack: