![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/03\/640x1024-275K-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis excerpt is the first four-and-a-half pages of Chapter Eleven (\u201cKing David Versus King Arthur\u201d) of my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible<\/em>\u00a0(Catholic Answers Press, March 15, 2023: see further\u00a0book and purchase information<\/a>). Bible passages: RSV.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron, <\/em> The substantial historicity of the united monarchy of Judah (reigns of King Saul: c. 1037\u2013c. 1010 B.C., King David: c. 1010\u2013c. 970 B.C., and King Solomon: c. 970\u2013c. 931 B.C.) was widely accepted in the middle years of the twentieth century, even within secular archaeological circles.<\/p>\n But by the 1990s, what is called archaeological or biblical minimalism<\/em> became quite the fashionable view to take among a new generation of archaeologists who worked in Israel. It was the high-water mark of skepticism, influenced and infused by a marked \u201canti-biblical\u201d or \u201canti-traditional,\u201d or what could be called a \u201cvehemently secular,\u201d spirit. Older \u201ctruths\u201d were no longer accepted as established or given. Many archaeologists in the 1990s, and continuing until the present time, held or hold a view similar to the following:<\/p>\n Nadav Na\u2019aman, an authority on Jewish history . . . at Tel Aviv University, describes David\u2019s story as \u201cextraordinary fiction.\u201d But he believes that it contains kernels of truth, preserved as the tale was passed down by oral tradition. [188]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, among the minimalists, David is regarded similarly to how most historians view King Arthur: a real person (not nonexistent), but vastly mythologized, to such an extent that the \u201ckernel\u201d of historical truth and fact has been mostly lost amid the colorful and memorable legends built up around him. The late Philip R. Davies, Bible scholar at the University of Sheffield, confidently proclaimed the same: \u201cI\u2019m not the only scholar who suspects that the figure of King David is about as historical as King Arthur.\u201d [189]<\/p>\n Ze\u2019ev Herzog, archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, took an even more extreme view in a 1999 front-page story in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz<\/em>, titled \u201cThe Bible: No Evidence on the Ground\u201d:<\/p>\n Following seventy years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs\u2019 acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israelis are a stubborn people, and no one wants to hear it. [190]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I submit that stubbornness and excessive dogmatism are traits not unknown among minimalist archaeologists. Tom Meyer, a biblical scholar at Shasta Bible College in California, described this sort of skepticism among scholars, who thought King David \u201cnever existed and was a figment of the imagination of a post-exilic Jewish community who,\u00a0after returning to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity in the fifth century B.C., invented King David as a national figure which the fledgling nation could rally around as they rebuilt their country.\u201d [191]<\/p>\n Thomas L. Thompson, professor of Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen, and author of Early History of the Israelite People<\/em> (1992), stated,<\/p>\n It is out of the question that Saul, David, and Solomon, as described as kings in the Bible, could have existed. I think the biblical accounts are wonderful stories, invented at the time when Jerusalem was part of the Persian Empire in the fifth century B.C. [192]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n God has a wonderful sense of humor, and it is often exhibited (or so it seems to me) in the particular timing of new archaeological findings that support the truthfulness and historical trustworthiness of the Bible.<\/p>\n In March 1993, all biblical scholars and archaeologists (minimalist and maximalist alike) agreed that there was no \u201cconcrete evidence\u201d outside the Bible (such as in written monuments or documents) of the existence of King David. Then, lo and behold, in July 1993, just four months after the above article that cites Thompson, definitive evidence of this nature (the Tel Dan Stele) was found in Israel. Eric H. Cline, chairman of the Department of Classical and Semitic Languages and Literatures at the George Washington University, told the story in his book, Biblical Archaeology: A Very <\/em>Short Introduction<\/em>. A portion of it was adapted for an internet article, \u201cDid David and Solomon Exist?\u201d:<\/p>\n As it is currently reconstructed, the inscription describes the defeat of both Joram, king of Israel, and Ahaziyahu, king of Judah, by a king of Aram-Damascus in the ninth century BCE. [193]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cHouse of David\u201d is also biblical terminology (1 Sam. 20:16; 2 Sam. 3:1\u20136; 1 Kings 12:19\u201326; 2 Chron. 10:19; and many other instances in the RSV). The language of the inscription is a dialect of Aramaic. Most scholars think King Hazael of Damascus (ninth century B.C.) is the author. Prominent Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, who regards himself as neither a minimalist nor a maximalist (somewhere in the middle of the spectrum), described the decisive importance of this find:<\/p>\n Much of the minimalist effort has been invested in the claim that David and Solomon . . . are not historical figures. They argued that, like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, and Solomon are not mentioned in any extra-biblical texts, and should therefore be seen as legendary personalities. This argument suffered a major blow when the Tel Dan basalt stele was discovered in the mid-1990s. . . .<\/p>\n Moreover, it most probably specified the names of the two later kings\u2014Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah\u2014 both of whom are mentioned in the biblical text. [194]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Arguably, a second mention of the \u201cHouse of David\u201d occurs in the Mesha Stele [195] (c. 840 B.C.), connected with King Mesha of Moab, written using a variant of the Phoenician alphabet, closely related to paleo-Hebrew script. It was discovered in August 1868 in Dibhan, Jordan, but re-interpreted in light of the Tel Dan Stele, so that many think it refers to the \u201cHouse of David\u201d and contains a possible second mention of David. French epigrapher, historian, and philologist Andr\u00e9 Lemaire had actually suggested a reading of \u201cHouse of David\u201d in 1992, before the Tel Dan Stele was discovered. [196] An article written by Amanda Borschel-Dan notes how Michael Langlois, of the Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Michigan, used his own fancy high-tech methods to discover something further:<\/p>\n After layering the images together, in a startling discovery, Langlois found a previously overlooked dot, which indicates a break between words throughout the entire tablet, as was customary among scribes at the time. . . .<\/p>\n \u201cIn my paper I\u2019m not trying to discuss whether King David exists, just trying to read the stone, and my conclusion for line 31 is that the most likely reading is Beit David, which takes into account the traces of letters and the combination of them,\u201d said Langlois. [197]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n FOOTNOTES<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 188 Ruth Margalit, \u201cIn Search of King David\u2019s Lost Empire,\u201d<\/a> The New Yorker<\/em> (June 22, 2020).<\/p>\n 189 Philip R. Davies, \u201c\u2018House of David\u2019 Built on Sand: The Sins of the Biblical Maximizers,\u201d Bible Archaeology Report<\/em> 20:04 (July\/August 1994), 55.<\/p>\n 190 Cited in Ruth Margalit, \u201cIn Search of King David\u2019s Lost Empire\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n 191 Cited in Sebastian Kettley, \u201cArchaeology news: \u2018Incredible artefact testifies to the existence\u2019 of Bible\u2019s King David,\u201d<\/a> Express UK<\/em> (February 15, 2021).<\/p>\n 192 Cited in David Keys, \u201cLeading archaeologist says Old Testament stories are fiction,\u201d<\/a> Independent<\/em> (March 28, 1993).<\/p>\n 193 Eric H. Cline, \u201cDid David and Solomon Exist?,\u201d<\/a> The Bible and Interpretation<\/em> (October 2009).<\/p>\n 194 Israel Finkelstein and Amihay Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel<\/em> <\/a>(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 14.<\/p>\n 195 \u201cThe Mesha Stele, or Moabite Stone, a Non-Biblical Text, Confirms Some Events in the Biblical Book of Kings,\u201d<\/a> History of Information.<\/em><\/p>\n 196 Amanda Borschel-Dan, \u201cHigh-tech study of ancient stone suggests new proof of King David\u2019s dynasty,\u201d<\/a> The Times of Israel<\/em> (May 3, 2019).<\/p>\n 197 Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-one books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Excerpt about King David, from my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible<\/em>\u00a0(Catholic Answers Press, 3-15-23).<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This excerpt is the first four-and-a-half pages of Chapter Eleven (\u201cKing David Versus King Arthur\u201d) of my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible\u00a0(Catholic Answers Press, March 15, 2023: see further\u00a0book and purchase information). Bible passages: RSV. ***** Then all the tribes of Israel came to David […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":70557,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[448],"tags":[13772,13769,13766,13841,14716,1662,170,171,1661,638,14734,14737,15513,15516,2830,3141,1749,13942,6927,14773,14278,1724,15510,16899],"class_list":["post-71010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-jews-judaism-old-testament","tag-ancient-hebrews","tag-ancient-israelites","tag-ancient-jews","tag-archaeology-the-bible","tag-archaeology-of-the-old-testament","tag-bible-archaeology","tag-bible-history","tag-bible-science","tag-biblical-accuracy","tag-biblical-archaeology","tag-biblical-maximalism","tag-biblical-minimalism","tag-city-of-david","tag-david","tag-hebrew-bible","tag-hebrews","tag-historical-accuracy-of-the-bible","tag-khirbet-qeiyafa","tag-king-david","tag-king-david-archaeology","tag-mesha-stele","tag-old-testament","tag-tel-dan-stele","tag-the-word-set-in-stone"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nand said, \u201cBehold, we are your bone and flesh.\u201d<\/em>
\n\u20142 SAMUEL 5:1<\/p>\n
\nOpposing views exist, as always. Some think it refers to Balak, a Moabite in the Bible, who lived 200 years before David.<\/p>\n