I was watching a show on the history channel and they were talking about evidence, or the lack there of, of the historic kings of Israel David and Solomon (the show was actually about biblical archiology). They were debating back and forth about the question, and I was surprised to find out that there is very little real evidence for either historic figure (according to the skeptics). Is this true? One of the archiolotists said there was actually more evidence for King Arthur than for King David! That CAN’T be true…can it?
Also read what Dan Bahat one of Israel’s leading archaeologists and a senior lecturer at the Land of Israel Studies at Bar-Ilan University has to say on this subject.
Well, in the sense that several different early British writers mentioned Arthur while mention of the deeds of David and Solomon are pretty much confined to the two sets books (those of kings and those of chronicles) that borrow heavily from each other, they might make a case for “more” material on Arthur. I would consider that an exaggeration.
What is true is that neither David nor Solomon made enough of an impression on any surrounding nation to wind up being mentioned in any (surviving) work from outside ancient Judah or Israel. This does not mean that they did not exist, only that that the Hebrews did not have a nation large enough (at that time) to call the attention of Egypt or any other “great power” who might have recorded their existence. They had the good and bad fortune to get established as the Hittite empire was receding and before the Assyrian empire expanded to engulph them. Had there been a stronger empire in the region, they might never have been able to establish their own kingdom, but at least it would have had some outside evidence.
The Hebrews did not erect statues of themselves (avoiding idolatry) and had almost no monumental architecture bearing inscriptions, so their deeds are relegated to the pages of scrolls that have been copied (and lost). This has led some scholars to suggest that they were historical fictions, written by later scribes of Judah or Israel to “justify” claims on other lands.
I do not see that such suggestions are very strong. As noted, the lack of physical evidence can be related directly to their habits of construction and decoration. Even given the way that the two sets of recordings are dependent on each other, I would suggest that there is enough consistent detail, presented in a coherent and contiguous fashion, to indicate that those two kings lived (even if some of their deeds were romanticized).
In 1993 a stone inscribed with the words “House of David” was discovered at Tel Dan, even though it basically said little more than “House of David” without any (as yet deciphered) expanded context.
A brief review of the Tel Dan Stele can be found here. The Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan is generally attacked in this article written shortly after the discovery. (I present it only because it contains a fair amount of information, regardless of the conclusions drawn.) However, further studies have not ruled out the artifact’s apparent authenticity.
There are several articles in Biblical Archaeology Review, but only through paid subscription.
The fact remains that the average layman almost certainly would ascribe a very high probability to the historical reality of David and Solomon. Much, much higher than most archeologists. I think that’s what the guy on the History channel was getting at. Frankly, neither Arthor’s nor David/Solomon’s existence would hold up in a court of law.
In a recent (2001, I think) book, “The Bible Unearthed,” two Israeli scholars, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, present a compelling case that, with respect to most Biblical events recorded as occurring prior to the reign of King Josiah (almost the last king of Judah), not only is there insufficient evidence that the event occurred that way, but there is sufficent evidence that it didn’t. Most of the Old Testament is a pack of provable lies, pure and simple. There was a House of David, but it ruled only the area immediately around Jerusalem. There never was a united kingdom of Israel and Judah, ever. There never was an Exodus from Egypt. And Father Abraham never came up out of Ur of the Chaldees. Most of these stories, apparently, were made up after the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel and the Israelite priests and nobles fled south to Judah. They settled down in the court of King Josiah and then got started on a massive propaganda campaign to create a new national-religious myth. There’s even some question as to whether Israel or Judah really had a monotheistic religion before that time. Check out the March 2002 Harper’s Magazine – Daniel Lazare wrote an article about the book, “False Testament.”