If you did a quick google search of the question, Was King David real? You would find that most people think that he was a real person who ruled Israel sometime around 1,000 BCE. Now, this is not to say that they would all agree he killed Goliath or had a great empire. On the contrary, many people view the stories about David with a skeptical eye. Yet, be that as it may, there is a general consensus surrounding his existence.
Was King David Real? The Evidence
Although the historicity of King David is well-excepted today, this has not always been the case. In fact, for most of the modern era, no non-biblical evidence of his life existed. This led many scholars to conclude that the story of King David was more fictional than historical.
The Tel Dan Stele
However, in 1993 Avraham Biran and his team uncovered a stele in Tel Dan, Israel. Inscribed on the face of the stone are the words “House of David.” After further investigation, the researchers determined that the inscription is from the ninth century and that its creator was likely Hazael, king of Damascus (1 king 19:15). Researchers believe that the stele is a victory speech commemorating Hazael’s conquest of both the king of Israel and Judah.
“[I killed Jeho]ram son [of Ahab] king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]g of the House of David, and I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into [desolation…]”
Translation provided by the Israel Exploration Journal
The Tel Dan stele was the first non-biblical artifact with a direct and explicit reference to a Davidic dynasty. Consequently, its discovery had a significant impact on the opinions of scholarship regarding David and the Biblical narrative. As stated above, before this discovery, many in scholarship viewed the story of David as fiction. The Tel Dan stele changed the situation drastically and cemented David into the history books.
The Masha Stela and The Karnak Inscription
Aside from the Tel Dan stele, there are two more artifacts worth noting. These artifacts are the Mesha stele and an Egyptian inscription on a wall of the Great Temple at Karnak.
The Mesha stele is thought, by some scholars, to be another House of David reference. However, the stele has damage right where the critical letters are. Consequently, it cannot help us answer the question, was kind David real? Similarly, the inscription in the Great Temple at Karnak is both promising and inconclusive. According to Kenneth Kitchen, the inscription mentions a place in ancient Israel called “the Heights of David.” Although his interpretation is exciting, damage prevents it from being translated with a large level of certainty.
The New Question: Was There A United Monarchy?
After Biran’s discovery at Tel Dan, scholars began pivoting away from the question was king David real? The discovery caused many to adopt a new question, how accurate is the Biblical account of David? Unfortunately, because David lived over 3,000 years ago, there isn’t much extra-biblical evidence to work with. Consequently, researchers can investigate only a few aspects of David’s story. Today, the most critical question being batted around by P.H.D.s is, how powerful was king David?
The Low Chronology Perspective
One of the leading views regarding the power of David’s ancient Kingdome comes from Israel Finkelstein, who suggests that David was less of an imperial king and more of a tribal leader. This idea is a part of a larger view called low chronology. This concept gained popularity after Finkelstein published a paper on it in 1995. In a nutshell, the low chronology perspective argues that Israel and Juda did not urbanize until the 9th century B.C.E. One hundred years or so after David lived.
Finkelstein does, however, think that David and Solomon were real founding rulers. He also suggests that the stories told about them may come from memories passed down through the generations. Yet, according to him, the Biblical description of their power is largely exaggerated and ideologically driven.
The High Chronology Perspective
On the other hand, the high chronology perspective argues that David was a king who ruled over a united monarchy. Proponents of this view argue that the inhabitance of Israel began urbanization in the 11th century. According to this view, by the 10th century, Juda and Israel were urbanized and united under the Davidic monarchy.
Unfortunately, most of the evidence archeologists have to work with Is largely open to both perspectives. Consequently, every opinion and interpretation is controversial, to say the least. However, recent discoveries uncovered at the excavation of Khirbet Qeiyafa have some researchers wondering if a conclusion to the debate is on the horizon.
Khirbet Qeiyafa: Strong Evidence Of A United Monarchy?
Khirbet Qeiyafa is an archeological dig site located about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. The dig is under the supervision of Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor. The excavation team found that it was a large city with fortification and two large gates. This suggests that the city’s builders possessed a high level of civilization.
However, the most interesting aspect of the research is the date attributed to the site. Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor determined that Khirbet Qeiyafa dates back to the 10th century BCE. According to the Haaretz, Garfinkel summed up the implications of their find like this….
“Khirbet Qeiyafa indicates that urbanism started in Judah at 1000 B.C.E., the time of King David,”
If this date is accurate, then Khirbet Qeiyafa would pose a big problem for the low chronology perspective, which suggests urbanization happened much later. Although Garfinkel’s 10th-century date has seen some criticism, the evidence Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor used for the date has proven to be very convincing.
For example, the Israel Antiquities Authority had this to say about the find.
“The excavations at Khirbat Qeiyafa clearly reveal an urban society that existed in Judah already in the late eleventh century B.C.E. It can no longer be argued that the Kingdom of Judah developed only in the late eighth-century B.C.E. or at some other later date.”
Final Thoughts
In light of artifacts like the Tel Dan stele, I believe it is safe to say that David was a real ruler of ancient Israel. As for the scope of his power, I think that the debate is far from over. Although, I find the discoveries and conclusions made by Yosef Garfinkel very compelling. There are people much smarter than me who are not completely satisfied, so there is still work to do.
Personally, I am very excited and hopeful for the future of Biblical archeology. There is no telling what archeologists will find in the future. And if the current trends remain the same, we may be in for more spectacular physical confirmations of scripture.
Thanks for being awesome!
