Did King David exist?

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Well, I tend to see the Old Testament as most probably a collection of documents from the Persian period. Most likely from groups of Persian migrants to Jehud who attempted to integrate local traditions about the past and religion into their own traditions. The earliest complete copy of Samuel exists in the Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century CE, we can speculate backwards from there working backwards towards the fragments of Samuel among the Dead Sea Scrolls that the text may have even been Hellenistic in origin, since the entire book is not extant there. Whatever sources the authors of the bible used, whatever fragments, their original contexts aren't known, those "annals of the kings" we simply do not have their original texts and so simply cannot remove them from their final form. Nor can we have any hope in dating them.

Any hope that we can have about a history of Israel is an archaeology of the Levant and the past reconceptualised this way does not correspond in any meaningful way to the textual past of the OT. When pure archaeology is used to ascertain what happened in the Levant between the Bronze age and the Iron Age the patriarchs vanish, the conquest vanishes, the united monarchy vanishes, a plurality of small conglomerates of governments across the Levant appear with no apparent centrality. In fact the archaeological data creates a narrative so different from the OT that harmonising it becomes the real problem. Biblical archaeologists problematically attempt to read both the concrete and the texts together but their narratives scatter the archaeological data around and simply don't take the textual data as composite intentional text.

Click to expand...

Arguments from silence aren't very persuasive but must be taken seriously. You give good advice when you say what we shouldn't do with the finalized form of the texts. Then you go and do what you tell others not to do. Only in the opposite direction. As if you're unaware of the hypocracy and irony of your unsubstantiated extrapolations.
When pure archaeology is used is another relative and manipulative wording. The field is divided and there is no concensus either way. Most will say there is no evidence for the patriarchs but, many accept that the period fits the description. Most will say there is no evidence of the biblical exodus, but only few will say the Israelites didn't settle in the hills of Canaan during said time period. Most will say there is little evidence of a conquest but none say the Israelites didn't end up possessing the land. Most will say there is no evidence for a united monarchy but none say Judah and Israel did not exist together and originate from the same tribal confederation. A conglomerate of governments across the Levant fits in well with the texts for the periods in question. Harmonization only becomes difficult when it is predetermined what the text is saying or the manner of triumphalism in which it has been historically taught. You've allowed your Sunday School teacher to determine what you argue against in the historical narratives. That is the real strength of your position, allowing only a small box you've prepared for him as the only position he can speak from. In this manner he must speak up to you and you down to him. This is the outcome of a school of thought not scientific or historical method.

Harfelugan said:

Arguments from silence aren't very persuasive but must be taken seriously. You give good advice when you say what we shouldn't do with the finalized form of the texts. Then you go and do what you tell others not to do. Only in the opposite direction. As if you're unaware of the hypocracy and irony of your unsubstantiated extrapolations.
When pure archaeology is used is another relative and manipulative wording. The field is divided and there is no concensus either way. Most will say there is no evidence for the patriarchs but, many accept that the period fits the description. Most will say there is no evidence of the biblical exodus, but only few will say the Israelites didn't settle in the hills of Canaan during said time period. Most will say there is little evidence of a conquest but none say the Israelites didn't end up possessing the land. Most will say there is no evidence for a united monarchy but none say Judah and Israel did not exist together and originate from the same tribal confederation. A conglomerate of governments across the Levant fits in well with the texts for the periods in question. Harmonization only becomes difficult when it is predetermined what the text is saying or the manner of triumphalism in which it has been historically taught. You've allowed your Sunday School teacher to determine what you argue against in the historical narratives. That is the real strength of your position, allowing only a small box you've prepared for him as the only position he can speak from. In this manner he must speak up to you and you down to him. This is the outcome of a school of thought not scientific or historical method.

Click to expand...

It kind of is an argument from silence. Jerusalem lacked fortification until the 8th century BCE while many other cities in Palestine had fortification going back way beyond 1000 BCE. This means that the city most probably lacked the importance of being a political centre and certainly a religious centre for anything but a small group of people.

Material culture, probably the best resource of which we have is pottery, suggests that there was no conquest. There was continual destruction and rebuilding all throughout Palestine between the 12th and 10th centuries however when one looks at the pottery one sees nothing but continuity. When we can discern changes in population densities suggesting migrations, it is not uniform and doesn't correspond to a dramatic change in material culture. Jerusalem during Iron Age IIa has, since D.W. Jamieson-Drake 1991 been argued to not have had the characteristics of a capital city. Here's what the archaeologists have said about Jerusalem:
Steiner (2001;2003a;2003b): It was a small town of mainly public buildings not exceeding 12 hectares with approximately 2000 inhabitants. Lehmann (2003:135-6) says 2 hectares and 300-600 inhabitants in Iron Age I and 4 hectares and 600-1200 inhabitants in Iron Age IIa. It appears like a regional administrative centre or the capital of a small new state, similar to the towns of Hazor, Gezer, Lachish and Megiddo. Killebrew (2003:336) has argued that the fortified complex just south of the Temple Mount probably was erected some time between the eighth and early sixth centuries. The lack of other finds relating to the fortification suggests that Jerusalem was unwalled and unfortified between the sixteenth to mid-eighteenth centuries. Also, the elaborate water system of the Middle Bronze IIb went out of use until the eighth/seventh centuries (Killebrew 2003:345).

The real transformations came around the 9th century BCE not the 10th century. This has implications for the very notion of a united monarchy. The tenth century is closer to the previous period than to Iron II and the real revolution came around in the 9th century mostly in the north than the south. If David and Solomon did exist in the 10th century they would have been chiefdoms with little authority outside of their particular net, which is what Israel Finkelstein suggests. Again, these are just my opinions and my interpretations of the text and the archaeological data. Everyone has different beliefs and people tend to believe things based on reason, those who believe that Jerusalem did not develop into a substantial city until Iron Age IIb at the moment have the current archaeology on their side. Those who maintain an earlier development must argue on the basis of what is presumed to have disappeared or what may be found in the future.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

It kind of is an argument from silence. Jerusalem lacked fortification until the 8th century BCE while many other cities in Palestine had fortification going back way beyond 1000 BCE. This means that the city most probably lacked the importance of being a political centre and certainly a religious centre for anything but a small group of people.

Click to expand...

Jerusalem of the tenth century B.C.E. is described by Finkelstein as a small and unimportant village. However, the “Stepped Stone Structure” in Area G in the City of David is a huge retaining wall that must have supported one of the largest buildings (perhaps the largest) of the 12th-10th centuries B.C.E. in the entire land of Israel. The pottery evidence indicates that it was founded during the Iron Age I (12th-11th centuries B.C.E.) and went out of use at some time after the tenth century. This fits the Biblical description of “The Citadel of Zion” (Metsudat Zion) as a Jebusite citadel captured by David and used as his stronghold (2 Samuel 5:7). In addition, Iron IIA pottery was found in almost every excavation area in the City of David. Jerusalem may not have been an enormous city during that time, but it definitely was much more than merely a small village, as Finkelstein contends. Outside of Jerusalem, monumental structures at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer can, in my opinion, be dated to the tenth century B.C.E. Thus Yigael Yadin was probably correct in suggesting that these should be associated with Solomon’s building projects mentioned in 1 Kings 9:15.’, Mazar, ‘Does Amihai Mazar Agree with Finkelstein’s “Low Chronology”?’, Biblical Archaeology Review (29.02), March/April 2003.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Material culture, probably the best resource of which we have is pottery, suggests that there was no conquest. There was continual destruction and rebuilding all throughout Palestine between the 12th and 10th centuries however when one looks at the pottery one sees nothing but continuity. When we can discern changes in population densities suggesting migrations, it is not uniform and doesn't correspond to a dramatic change in material culture.

Click to expand...

This is also the biblical description given in Judges concerning the conquest. It can also be harmonized with Joshua through a critical overview of the text. Concerning a migration you’ve omitted the hilltop settlements between the 12th and 10th centuries along with their distinctive material culture. Didn’t your Finkelstine bring this to light decades ago. Dever quotes him as admitting to the central hilltop region may have contained up to 100,000 people by the 10th century B.C..

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Jerusalem during Iron Age IIa has, since D.W. Jamieson-Drake 1991 been argued to not have had the characteristics of a capital city. Here's what the archaeologists have said about Jerusalem:
Steiner (2001;2003a;2003b): It was a small town of mainly public buildings not exceeding 12 hectares with approximately 2000 inhabitants. Lehmann (2003:135-6) says 2 hectares and 300-600 inhabitants in Iron Age I and 4 hectares and 600-1200 inhabitants in Iron Age IIa. It appears like a regional administrative centre or the capital of a small new state, similar to the towns of Hazor, Gezer, Lachish and Megiddo. Killebrew (2003:336) has argued that the fortified complex just south of the Temple Mount probably was erected some time between the eighth and early sixth centuries. The lack of other finds relating to the fortification suggests that Jerusalem was unwalled and unfortified between the sixteenth to mid-eighteenth centuries. Also, the elaborate water system of the Middle Bronze IIb went out of use until the eighth/seventh centuries (Killebrew 2003:345).

Click to expand...

Again
Jerusalem of the tenth century B.C.E. is described by Finkelstein as a small and unimportant village. However, the “Stepped Stone Structure” in Area G in the City of David is a huge retaining wall that must have supported one of the largest buildings (perhaps the largest) of the 12th-10th centuries B.C.E. in the entire land of Israel. The pottery evidence indicates that it was founded during the Iron Age I (12th-11th centuries B.C.E.) and went out of use at some time after the tenth century. This fits the Biblical description of “The Citadel of Zion” (Metsudat Zion) as a Jebusite citadel captured by David and used as his stronghold (2 Samuel 5:7). In addition, Iron IIA pottery was found in almost every excavation area in the City of David. Jerusalem may not have been an enormous city during that time, but it definitely was much more than merely a small village, as Finkelstein contends. Outside of Jerusalem, monumental structures at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer can, in my opinion, be dated to the tenth century B.C.E. Thus Yigael Yadin was probably correct in suggesting that these should be associated with Solomon’s building projects mentioned in 1 Kings 9:15.’, Mazar, ‘Does Amihai Mazar Agree with Finkelstein’s “Low Chronology”?’, Biblical Archaeology Review (29.02), March/April 2003.

This is an exerpt from a book edited by Lehmann and Killabrew , two scholars you’ve qouted.

. In the first section on “The Philistines in Text and Archaeology,” the late Itamar Singer responds to Israel Finkelstein, who sweepingly states that “the biblical references to the Philistines do not contain any memory of early Iron I events or cultural behavior” (“The Philistines in the Bible: A LateMonarchic Perspective,” JSOT 27 [2002]: 131) and asserts that they reflect late-monarchic times instead. Singer argues that the Deuteronomistic history (Dtr) “preserves a relatively accurate memory of the distant past, of a time when the Philistines expanded from their five city-kingdoms northwards and eastwards to the central highlands, or in other words, of the Iron I” (26–27).

What we see is double speak where they allow an outside source to imply something they might not say themselves to back up another pet argument of their own. In other words your sources play both sides of the fence.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

The real transformations came around the 9th century BCE not the 10th century. This has implications for the very notion of a united monarchy. The tenth century is closer to the previous period than to Iron II and the real revolution came around in the 9th century mostly in the north than the south. If David and Solomon did exist in the 10th century they would have been chiefdoms with little authority outside of their particular net, which is what Israel Finkelstein suggests.

Click to expand...

The geopolitical circumstances in the Elah Valley during the late 11th–early 10th centuries are quite clear. The mighty Philistine city state of Gath, ca. 30 hectares in area, was located only 12 km downstream from Khirbet Qeiyafa. This was a hostile border area, where the Kingdoms of Gath and Jerusalem had constant millenary conflicts. The story of David and Goliath is just one of many such “warrior tales” listed in 2 Sam 21:15–22 and 1 Ch 11:11–27. Even if many of these traditions are folkloristic in character, their chronology and geography bear historical memories. As by the end of the 9th century BCE Gath disappeared as a political power, these traditions must have been created at an earlier time.’, Garfinkel, ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim’, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (8.22.6). 2008.

Khirbet Qeiyafa is surrounded by a massive casemate city wall, 700 m long and 4 m wide. It is constructed of megalithic stones, quite often reaching a weight of 4–5 tons apiece, and in the eastern gate, even ca. 10 tons each. Our calculation suggests that 200,000 tons of stone were required for the construction of these fortifications. A four-chambered gate, its upper part constructed of ashlars, was located and excavated in the western part of the city. It is clearly a fortified town rather than a rural settlement.’, Garfinkel, ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim’, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (8.22.5). 2008.

As Khirbet Qeiyafa is an Iron Age IIA site, we are left with a dating post-1000 BCE, that is, 1000–975 BCE (59.6%) or 1000–969 BCE (77.8%). These dates fit the time of King David (ca. 1000–965 BCE) and are too early for King Solomon (ca. 965–930 BCE).’, ibid., p. 3.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Again, these are just my opinions and my interpretations of the text and the archaeological data. Everyone has different beliefs and people tend to believe things based on reason, those who believe that Jerusalem did not develop into a substantial city until Iron Age IIb at the moment have the current archaeology on their side. Those who maintain an earlier development must argue on the basis of what is presumed to have disappeared or what may be found in the future.

Click to expand...

Your entitled to your opinions. Yet after stating them with academic sources you imply no academic weight to the everyone elses opinion. Those who believe as you do do not as present have current archaeology on their side. Those maintain the earlier development argue on the basis of what has been discovered. If you can be so misleading and deny the opposite view a position to stand, should your statements be given any weight?

Harfelugan said:

Thus Yigael Yadin was probably correct in suggesting that these should be associated with Solomon’s building projects

Click to expand...

There's been considerable debate after Yadin wrote this. Yadin precedes Finkelstein and Finkelstein's Low Chronology is a response to the Yadin Solomonic paradigm. After Yadin posited it in the late 70s over the subsequent 20 years or so it has been slowly chipped away and today virtually no one takes it all that seriously. The problems suggested are that if one takes the strata Hazor X and place it in the time frame of Solomon's rebuilding projects, one creates chaos with strata IX, VIII and VII. What Yadin did was identify Hazor X with Solomon and Hazor V with the destruction of Hazor by Tiglath Pileser III in 732 BCE. What this meant was that the layers between these strata required to be synthesised into a convincing historical description of the data and this created problems, strata IX was assumed to have been the destruction by fire of Ben-Hadad, strata VIII is the city of Ahab, strata VII was destroyed by an "unidentified" Aramaen campaign at the end of the 9th century BCE. The chaos here is that there is no explanation offered for the extra destroyed strata, nothing accounts for it in the biblical data, this is why Yadin names it an "unidentified Aramaen campaign". The sandwich of Solomon and Tiglath Pileser III has an awkward layer in the middle, an ingredient which I wouldn't trust enough to digest. This is a problem for dating the strata and can be solved by simply dating strata X to the 9th century BCE.

The whole project of using the bible to inform the interpretation of archaeological data is rejected even by those like Yosef Garfinkel who excavated the Kirbet Qeiyafa site. He claims to be doing archaeology separately and simply describing the data itself. Whether he's doing this is another matter, he's been criticised for using the Kirbet Qeiyafa site polemically against those he considers minimalists, albeit, there's no single minimalism to which he's arguing against. And the fact that he assumes a historical David for these reconstructions is a matter of contention as well. The fact that he's supposing a historical David for his interpretation of the raw archaeological data seems to suggest that he's involved in the "biblical archaeology" movement as much as he'd reject it.

Harfelugan said:

Concerning a migration you’ve omitted the hilltop settlements between the 12th and 10th centuries along with their distinctive material culture. Didn’t your Finkelstine bring this to light decades ago.

Click to expand...

Finkelstein's description of the "migration" is something of an integration of the Mendenhall-Gottwald thesis (internal revolt) and the Alt-Noth thesis (peaceful infiltration). The new population which settled on the hill country were made up of nomadic pastoralists different from the Canaanites, yet were still part of the indigenous population (1988:310). I don't really buy this, I don't think we can know the origin of the Israelites at all, much like we don't know the origins of the Canaanites, most of the ancient sources describing them comes from the Old Testament. All we know is that the Merneptah Stelle possibly mentions "Israel" or possibly 'Jezreel". Whatever the origin of the ancient Israelites may have been, the biblical religion seems to me to be a Persian integration of local Palestinian traditions.

Harfelugan said:

Your entitled to your opinions. Yet after stating them with academic sources you imply no academic weight to the everyone elses opinion. Those who believe as you do do not as present have current archaeology on their side. Those maintain the earlier development argue on the basis of what has been discovered. If you can be so misleading and deny the opposite view a position to stand, should your statements be given any weight?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that other positions hold no academic weight, remember that I said that I used to disagree with my peers when I was studying religion? I don't personally see how the position of a historical David can be maintained in the light of the data without reading the biblical text into the archaeological data in some way or another, and I personally wouldn't be inclined to do it because the Dtr historiographer is at the very least an Exilic school of writers (though I'd be more inclined to a Persian era), the author(s) seem to write what can be seen as a coherent whole after Jehoiachin (597 BCE).

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

There's been considerable debate after Yadin wrote this. Yadin precedes Finkelstein and Finkelstein's Low Chronology is a response to the Yadin Solomonic paradigm. After Yadin posited it in the late 70s over the subsequent 20 years or so it has been slowly chipped away and today virtually no one takes it all that seriously. The problems suggested are that if one takes the strata Hazor X and place it in the time frame of Solomon's rebuilding projects, one creates chaos with strata IX, VIII and VII. This is a problem for dating the strata and can be solved by simply dating strata X to the 9th century BCE.

Click to expand...

Yigaelth Yadin isn’t to be taken as the source but a reference by Mazar from 2003 that Yadin was probably correct in the late 70’s. Finkelstein precedes Mazar and Mazar’s refutation of Finkelsteins’s Low Chronology is a response to the Finkelstein non-Solomonic paradigm. The Low Chronology was first proposed in the early 80’s, over the subsequent 30 years or so it has been slowly chipped away and today virtually no one takes it all that seriously.Revisionism began on the archaeological front in the early 1980s, when several archaeologists o the Tel Aviv University set out to lower the conventional 10th century date of the distinctive four-entryway city gates and casement (or double) walls at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer to the early-mid-9th century BCE.’, Dever, ‘Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology’, in Perdue (ed.), ‘The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew Bible’, p. 137 (2001). Mazar concluded that Finkelstein’s suggestion to push the date of the Philistine Monochrome pottery beyond the end of the Egyptian presence in Canaan is based upon a debatable assumption.

The Tel Aviv school‘s, idiosyncratic Low Chronology wasn’t accepted by the Jerusalem School, or by any European or American archaeologist, (It still isn’t widely accepted, even by all Tel Aviv archaeologists). The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew Bible’, p. 137 (2001). Isn’t this the school of most if not all of your sources come from?

Anabel Zarzeki focused on the Iron Age stratigraphy of northern assemblages. Zarzeki-Peleg presented a ceramic typological study of three important northern sites (Megiddo, Jokneam, and Hazor) and concluded that the stratigraphical redating of the Low Chronology is not possible.

The most significant studies, all opposed to Finkelstein’s “low chronology,” are those of Zarzeki-Peleg, 1997; Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami, 1998; and Mazar, 19991.’, Dever, ‘Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology’, in Perdue (ed.), ‘The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew Bible’, p. 202 (2001).

In the meantime, Finkelstein’s views are opposed by such leading archaeologists as Amihai Mazar of Hebrew University, excavator of Tel Rehov;* Amnon Ben-Tor of Hebrew University, excavator of Hazor;* Lawrence Stager of Harvard University, excavator of Ashkelon; and William Dever of the University of Arizona, excavator of Gezer. More to the point, Finkelstein’s low chronology has not been accepted even by his codirector at Megiddo, David Ussishkin. Ussishkin tells us that “on archaeological grounds it is quite possible (though not necessary) that some or all of [the structures in Stratum VA-IVB] originate in the 10th century B.C.E., during Solomon’s reign,” which is what the traditional chronology holds.’, Shanks, ‘Reviews: Megiddo III—The 1992–1996 Seasons, Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern, Editors’, Biblical Archaeology Review (6.06), November/December 2000.

It should not go unnoticed that not a single other ranking Syro-Palestinian archaeologist in the world has come out in print in support of Finkelstein’s ‘low chronology’.’, Dever, ‘Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: The Question of the United Monarchy’, in Day (ed.), ‘In Search of Pre-exilic Israel: proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar’, p. 73 (2003).

The overwhelming consensus is, now more than ever, against Finkelstein’s low chronology, and therefore against his ‘new vision’ of ancient Israel.’, Dever, in Tel Aviv, volumes 30-31, p. 278 (2003).

Demolishing Finkelstein’s supposed late date for the appearance of Philistine Bichrome pottery, based on an argument entirely from silence, leaves him without a leg to stand on for the remainder of his Iron I ‘low chronology’. While he continues to present it as fact, even claiming a growing consensus, there is not a shred of empirical (that is, stratigraphic) evidence to support this chronology.’, Dever, ‘Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: The Question of the United Monarchy’, in Day (ed.), ‘In Search of Pre-exilic Israel: proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar’, p. 73 (2003).

Most senior archaeologists reject Finkelstein’s low chronology.’, Shanks, ‘Radiocarbon Dating: How to Find Your True Love’, Biblical Archaeology Review (31.01), January/February 2005; he cites ‘Amihai Mazar, Ephraim Stern, Amnon Ben-Tor, all of Hebrew University; Lawrence Stager of Harvard; William Dever and Seymour Gitin, the former and present directors of the Albright Institute in Jerusalem; and even Baruch Halpern, co-director with Finkelstein and David Ussishkin of the current excavation of Megiddo.’, but adds ‘But at this level of scholarship, you don’t simply count noses; you reason and argue!

Currently, Finkelstein is the only outspoken proponent of the Low Chronology.’, Ortiz, ‘Deconstructing and Reconstructing the United Monarch’ , in Hoffmeier & Millard (eds.), ‘The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions’, p. 128 (2004).

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

I didn't say that other positions hold no academic weight, remember that I said that I used to disagree with my peers when I was studying religion? I don't personally see how the position of a historical David can be maintained in the light of the data without reading the biblical text into the archaeological data in some way or another, and I personally wouldn't be inclined to do it because the Dtr historiographer is at the very least an Exilic school of writers (though I'd be more inclined to a Persian era), the author(s) seem to write what can be seen as a coherent whole after Jehoiachin (597 BCE).

Click to expand...

Not giving recognition to the opposing position, out side of acknowledging they exist, is the same thing as dismissing them altogether. Which you then do by presenting them as a defeated minority who can rarely even be found today. You've misrepresented your own position as the majority view when is basically one specific school. You've misrepresented the evidence as well. I've no problem accepting your sources as scholars in the field. That their positions are part of the ongoing debate. Hopefully I've in no way misrepresented them. Again I ask, in light of your misrepresentation of your own position as well as the current concensus of the majority of archaeologists and the evidence, why should you be taken seriously?

King David was a real person. I have no doubt about that.