Introduction
Over the centuries, there has been
much debate over the historicity of the Bible. One form of study that has
developed to address this issue is biblical archaeology. Carl Keil, in 1858,
defined biblical archaeology as “the scientific, representation of the forms
which life assumed among the people of Israel as that nation of antiquity which
God had selected to be the bearer of the revelations in the Bible.” Until recently, biblical
archaeology was discovering little proof for the existence of the United
Monarchy of David and Solomon. David and Solomon’s reigns would have been
during the Iron Age IIa time period, and there was a general lack of evidence
from this time period. This has led many to speculate that David and Solomon
were fictitious characters created as an example of what great kings would be
like. However, recent discovers are providing the historical evidence for the existence
of both David and Solomon and their kingdom.
Historical
Person or Fictitious Character
The first step in proving the
historical existence of the kingdoms of David and Solomon is demonstrating that
David and Solomon were historical people. The lack of archaeological evidence
for their kingdoms in Jerusalem seemed to validate the assertions saying they
did not exist. However, it is important to note that Jerusalem “was ‘officially’
destroyed at least twice, besieged to near destruction at least twenty-three
times, and attacked more than fifty-two times by outside forces.” As a result of all the
conflict that has surrounded the city, it is understandable that most relics
from the Iron Age IIa period, approximately tenth century BCE, have been
destroyed. With this in mind, it becomes necessary to look to other sources for
proof of the existence of David and Solomon and their kingdoms.
David
A monumental find in proving the
historicity of David is the Dan Inscription which was found in Tel Dan in 1993.
This inscription was found on the underside of a slab that had been repurposed
as a paving stone. The slab has been “dated to about 800 B.C.E., and it is
theorized that the stele was on display from perhaps 796 to 791 B.C.E..” The inscription relates
the claims of Hazael, the King of Aram. It said “I killed Jehoram, son of Ahab,
king of Israel, and I killed Ahaziahu, son of Jehoram, king of the house of
David.” Both kings that are listed
are biblical kings from the Northern and Southern kingdoms. Of more
significance though is the reference to the house of David. This reference
shows that as of the ninth century BCE the surrounding nations recognized the
house of David. This means David was a real person that left real descendants.
This one find has satisfied all but the staunchest critics of the historicity
of David.
A second find that supports the
historicity of David is the Meshe Stele. This inscription was found in 1868 and
contains the claims of the Moabite King Meshe of his victory over an Israelite
king, believed to be Ahab. This stele has been dated
to the ninth century. After the discovery of the
Dan Inscription, this piece was re-inspected and the section at the end, that
has been damaged, is believed to reference the house of David. This makes two inscriptions
from nations outside of Israel that reference a house of David.
Solomon
The discoveries that demonstrate the
historicity of Solomon are architectural finds rather than the inscriptions in
the case of David. One of these architectural finds is the gates in Megiddo,
Hazor, and Gezer. These gates have all been dated to the Solomonic period, and
the similarities in the gates strongly suggest that they were all built by the
same architect.
This seems to be validated when compared to 1 Kings 9:15: “Now
this is the account of the forced labor which King Solomon levied to build the
house of the Lord, his own house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo,
and Gezer.”
The gates have been dated to the time of Solomon, were designed by the same
person, and are the cities that 1 Kings states that Solomon rebuilt. This all
points to Solomon being a historical person who ordered the construction of
these three.
The second architectural find that
supports Solomon as being a historical person is the ruins of Gezer. The
importance of Gezer is seen from 1 Kings 19:16 “For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up
and captured Gezer and burned it with fire, and killed the Canaanites who lived
in the city, and had given it as
a dowry to his daughter, Solomon’s wife.” In the ruins of Gezer, the
remains of a palace-like structure was found. This is believed to have been
built by Solomon for his wife. “It is now known that a casemate building west of
the gate is a tenth-century ‘palace’ comparable to those of Solomonic Megiddo.” This palace in Gezer
supports what the Bible says about Solomon adding to his historicity.
Cultural
Development
Another argument that is used to try
and disprove the historicity of the biblical account of David and Solomon
revolves around the development of the peoples of Israel. It is asserted that even though they existed
as people, the kingdom was not developed. “Israel at the time of David and
Solomon, they argued, was at most a bunch of tribes led by a local tribal
chief; hence, it was not a nation so much as a chiefdom.” But recent archaeological discoveries are demonstrating that not
only were David and Solomon real people but they were the kings of a culturally-developed
kingdom.
Khirbet Summiely
Khirbet Summiely was “a small
Biblical period village (10th-8th century BC)” this village was located
in the northern part of the kingdom in the Negev desert. At this village
archaeologist have found, among other things, some ancient bullae. A bullae was
a seal that was used on official documents. It is similar to the wax seal used
on later political documents. The bullae in question have been positively dated
from the tenth century BCE. The existences of these
bullae from the time of the united monarchy, in a village on the outskirts of
the kingdom, demonstrates that there was “political or administrative
activities going on at a level well beyond those typical of a rural farmstead.” Since this is the time
period that is attested to the kingdoms of David and Solomon, these bullae are
used to demonstrate that their kingdoms were more than chiefdoms.
Khirbet Qeiyafa
Another archaeological discovery
demonstrating that the kingdom of David was more than a chiefdom is the city of
Khirbet Qeiyafa. The remains at Qeiyafa are remarkably well-preserved as a one
period site. In this case, everything in this city has been dated from the
tenth century BCE. Archeologists have been able to date Qeiyafa using pottery
shards and olive pits. The dating of the remains is precise enough to say that
the city was not used during the reign of King Solomon. They found remains of a
casemate wall. “This fortification wall is more than 2,200 feet long and 13
feet wide.”
The weight of all the stone needed to build such a wall is more than 200,000
tons. The archaeologist also found “a massive four chambered gate.” This type of building
project would require a “highly organized society” to accomplish. This suggest
that Israel was not just tribes but a kingdom.
Jerusalem
Solomon’s Temple
The lack of evidence in Jerusalem,
the City of David, has led many to speculate that the biblical accounts are
inaccurate. As noted earlier, this lack of evidence in large part is due to the
repeated destruction of the city of Jerusalem throughout the last six thousand
years. Of particular interest within the city is Solomon’s Temple. There have
been no remains found from the magnificent temple that he built. It is natural
that when the city was destroyed, first by the Babylonians and then by the
Romans, they would utterly destroy the center of worship for the conquered
people. Also, the holy Islamic temple, Dome of the Rock, has been constructed
on the site of Solomon’s Temple, making it impossible to excavate. With the
combination of all these factors, the lack of archaeological evidence does not
point to the non-existence of Solomon’s Temple.
Instead, the assertion that Solomon’s temple did not exist must be held
in abeyance until such time that excavations can be completed under the Dome of
the Rock.
David’s Palace
Eliat Mazar has found the remains of
a large stone structure on the outskirts of the Old City. Many have speculated this
was David’s palace. Mazar compared the archaeological findings of previous digs
with the biblical narrative and came to the conclusion that David would have
built on the outskirts of the conquered Jerusalem because he planned to expand
the city walls.
When Mazar raised the funding and began to excavate the site, they did indeed
find the remains of a substantial building. This finding is being called the “Large-Stone
Structure.”
Mazar believes the structure was built during the reign of David and had been renovated
a couple of times through the following years.
The most serious claim against Mazar
is the dating of the Large-Stone Structure. After her first dig, the critics
claimed the walls were from “the late Hellenistic period.” However after the second
dig the dating of the structure was clearly Iron Age. This led Faust to observe
that the structure is older than David’s conquest of Jerusalem. “[I]t is quite
clear in light of the above dating that the complex was constructed in the
period before this [David’s conquest], and prior to the establishment of
David’s capital in Jerusalem.” Faust has admitted that it is possible that
David used the structure, “David may still have used the structure as his
palace or as a fortress.” Even if the Large-Stone
Structure was not originally built by David but was renovated by him, this find
which is mentioned in the Bible is a great discovery.
Conclusion
These recent discoveries have helped to
prove the historical evidence for the existence of David and Solomon and their
kingdoms. By using sources outside of Israel that demonstrate the house of
David was a recognized establishment, this anchors David’s kingdom as a historical
event rather than a fictitious tale of Israel’s past. The city gates and
building at Gezer also substantiate the historicity of Solomon. The bullae from
Summiely and the walls and city gate from Qeiyafa demonstrate that David and
Solomon’s kingdoms were more than a collection of nomadic tribes. The lack of
evidence for Solomon’s Temple is not detrimental for the case for Solomon due
to the large amount of destruction in Jerusalem in general and the geopolitical
complications of the temple site in particular. Lastly, the remains of a
building in the area indicated by the Bible and consistent with a palace
structure all support the biblical narrative for the kingdoms of David and
Solomon.
Bibliography
Dever, William G. Recent Archaeological Discoveries and
Biblical Research. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1990.
Faust, Avraham. “Did Eilat Mazar
Find David’s Palace?” Biblical
Archaeology Review, (September/October 2012): 47-70. Accessed December 10,
2016. file:///C:/Users/Krista/Downloads/Did_Eilat_Mazar_Find_Davids_Palace_Bibli.pdf.
Freund, Richard A. Digging Through the Bible: Understanding
Biblical People, Places, and Controversies through Archaeology. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.
Golden, Jonathan M. Ancient Canaan and Israel: New Perspectives.
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO’s, 2004.
Hoerth, Alfred. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.
Mazar, Eilat. “Did I Find King
David’s Palace?” Biblical Archaeology
Society, (May 8, 2016). Accessed December 10, 2016. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/did-i-find-king-davids-palace/.
Science News Staff. “New Finds
Suggest Biblical Kings David and Solomon Actually Existed.” Archaeology, (December 26, 2014). Accessed
December 10, 2016.
http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/science-biblical-kings-david-solomon-02371.html.
Shanks, Hershel. “Newly Discovered: A Fortified City
from King David’s Time, Answers-and Questions-at Khirbet Qeiyafa.” Biblical Archaeological Review 35, no. 1
(January/February 2009). Accessed December 10, 2016. http://www.basarchive.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/bswbSearch.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=35&Issue=1&ArticleID=8&UserID=0&.
Woodbridge, John D.
and Frank A. James III. Church History, vol.
2, From Pre-Reformation to the Present
Day. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.
