A few days ago a fascinating article appeared in The Times of Israel with the headline “Web of biblical cities depicts King David as major ruler, says Israeli archaeologist”.[1] While the debate about the archaeological evidence for David’s Kingdom is a fascinating one, I think there are broader things that we can learn from this article about archaeology, history and the Bible.
Evidence for the Davidic Kingdom
There is an ongoing discussion in archaeological circles regarding the extent of David’s Kingdom. Yosef Garfinkel has been arguably the main protagonist in the last fifteen years.[2] In this article, he claims that the finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa, Beth Shemesh stratum 4, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, and Lachish stratum V all exhibit similar urban planning. Garfinkel sees evidence of urban planning in (among other things) the placement of the sites near major roads and that three of them had a special kind of wall (archaeologists call these walls casemate) found in later Judahite sites. Additionally, archaeologists found inscriptions at some of these sites, which Garfinkel argues is evidence of a centralised state and a strong Kingdom. Garfinkel dates these sites/strata to the time of David; therefore, we have archaeological evidence for a unified kingdom under David.
What Did David Build?
When we look at what the Bible claims about David, we see that the Bible only scantly mentions what he built. When it does mention his building feats, they are all centred on Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:9-11; 1 Chron 15:1). So whether or not these sites/strata are from the time of David and whether or not these sites are evidence of a strong state doesn’t impinge on the historicity of the biblical portrait.
The Dating Debate
There is a significant debate between Garfinkel and Lily Singer-Avitz as to the dating of Khirbet Qeiyafa, one of the sites that Garfinkel uses in his historical reconstruction.[3] This debate centres around the pottery forms at the site. The pottery forms found at Qeiyafa are a mix of forms from the eleventh century, with a few from the tenth century. This shows that Qeiyafa was in use for a very short time, straddling the late eleventh century/early tenth century. It is hard to say much beyond this. If Garfinkel is right in his dating, Qeiyafa is from the time of David. If Lily Singer-Avitz is correct, it is from when we traditionally date Saul.
What Do the Inscriptions Tell Us?
I think Garfinkel taking inscriptions at some sites as evidence of a major political state is methodologically flawed. The subject matter of the inscriptions—whether they relate to politics, economics or warfare—is important. If the inscriptions don’t relate to these matters, or we can’t as yet decipher them, they don’t help us in the debate regarding the Davidic kingdom. For example, Garfinkel and his team found a significant inscription at Khirbet Qeiyafa (the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon). But there is significant debate about this inscription’s language and translation. Authorities like Christopher Rollston and Allan Millard say we don’t have enough evidence to decipher all of the inscription at this time.[4] Therefore, while the inscription is fascinating it is not significant evidence for the nature of the Davidic kingdom.
Archaeological Interpretation
There are three interpretations of the archaeological data in The Times of Israel article. You have Garfinkel, who is optimistic that the archaeological data points to a Davidic state. You have Yuval Gadot, who says, “I can take a shoebox and put inside everything we have from that period”. And then you have Aren Maier who rightly cautions us about saying too much from the archaeological evidence. These three perspectives show us that there are various interpretations of the data. And these interpretations are not only based on the data but also on worldview, ideas about the Bible and historical criticism and even what school you studied at and who your doctoral supervisor was. This is true of almost every biblical archaeological debate. When anyone pronounces “Archaeologists say” and then presents a single opinion, much of the time they are, at best, radically oversimplifying a debate, and at worst, giving misleading information.
History, Ideology and the Bible
One quote from Garfinkel in the article displays what I think is a methodological error many historians fall into when talking about the Bible:
There are biblical traditions, and we can see if these have historical memories or not … It doesn’t mean that everything, 100 percent, is historical memories. Sometimes there are mistakes, sometimes there is wishful thinking, sometimes there is ideology.
Garfinkel states that the Bible contains historical memories, mistakes, wishful thinking and ideology. There is a significant stream of biblical criticism that pits history and ideology against each other. Many biblical historians imply that if a biblical text is ideological, it cannot be historical. When someone pits history against ideology, I think they forget that most ancient historical texts are ideological. They are shot through with the theology of their writers; if they are political accounts, they are trying to show the greatness of their leaders. Is the Bible ideological? Of course, it is, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is not historically reliable.
Interestingly, when we compare the biblical accounts to other ancient historical accounts, the biblical writers emphasise the failures of the people they are writing about. This overlooked aspect of the biblical writings is unique in the ancient world, and it makes you wonder: if the biblical writers took care to display their heroes, warts and all, why wouldn’t they take care to paint an accurate picture of the events they portrayed?
When we think deeply and critically about the findings of biblical historians and compare their findings, methodology and evidence, we see that there is significant debate in almost every part of Israelite history. There are times when the evidence confirms the biblical text. There are others where the evidence gives the same general picture of the biblical text, and there are times when the evidence, for various reasons, makes us go back to the text and the evidence to make sure we have got both the Bible and the evidence correct. When we look at the evidence around the tenth century, we see evidence pointing to an organised state in Israel. But we do need to be careful not to overstate our confidence in how much certainty the archaeological evidence gives us.
[1] Melanie Lidman, “Web of Biblical Cities Depicts King David as Major Ruler, Says Israeli Archaeologist”. The Times of Israel. 26th June 2023.
[2] For the last few fifteen years or so Garfinkel has taken Khirbet Qeiyafa as evidence for a Davidic state. See Yosef Garfinkel, Igor Kreimerman and Peter Zilberg, Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). On a popular level see Michael G. Hasel Yosef Garfinkel, Saar Ganor, In the Footsteps of King David: Revelations from an Ancient Biblical City. (London: Thames and Hudson).
[3] For Garfinkel’s arguments see Yosef Garfinkel, Igor Kreimerman and Peter Zilberg, Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society), 139-145. For Sinmger Avitz’s interpretation of the data see Lily Singer-Avitz, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Late Iron Age I in Spite of It All,” Israel Exploration Journal 62/2 and “The Relative Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa,” Tel Aviv Vol. 37.
[4] See Christopher Rollston, “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological Musings and Caveats” Tel Aviv Vol. 38; Alan Millard, “The Ostracon from the Days of David Found at Khirbet Qeiyafa.” Tyndale Bulletin Vol. 62.
