The matter is a lot like the search for an historical Jesus. Yes there was likely someone governing a small region that may have inspired the David story but the details have been so muddied with legend and 5th century propaganda that we will likley never know much about him. David (meaning "beloved") was the beloved king of Yahweh who replaced Saul (meaning "asked for") the king given to the people when they asked for one. His son Solomon (meaning "peace") was the one who brought peace to the land. The names are placed in the narrative for obvious literary reasons. The names themselves are not surprising, "David" was the name of a minor deity of the region and so it is possible some king/ governor adopted the name or used the name as a title (there is some evidence of it's use as a title). Likewise "Solomon" and "Jerusalem" have clear associations with a deity. As Leolaia pointed out there was no city in the 10th century, but there was an outpost and likely the center for cult worship of Shalem and El.
Some Sort of 10th Century BC Structure Found in Jerusalem
by the_classicist 12 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
JCanon
The matter is a lot like the search for an historical Jesus. Yes there was likely someone governing a small region that may have inspired the David story but the details have been so muddied with legend and 5th century propaganda that we will likley never know much about him.
As mentioned before, Shishak's inscription about the cities he conquered in the region which is matched to the 5th year of Jeroboam greatly limits how minimalizing you can go with the the state of the country during David's reign leading up to Solomon. That is, one would have to presume all those cities conquered that Shishak listed sort of popped up and became prominent in a shorter versus longer period of time. Even if the archaeological findings, which could be scarce for many legitimate reasons (i.e. stones removed to build at other sites was common), Shishak confirms a very developed region during his day (i.e. 925 BCE).
At the other end of the spectrum, less than 480 years earlier we have lots of testimony in the development of the entire region of Caanan via the famous Amarna letters from the rules of Amenophis II through "King Tut." The letters among other things show the state of the Hittites and state marriages between the Egyptians and kings from this region. But even these letters from 50 years before the Jews conquered the land of Caanan show an active and well-populated region at the time and lots of activity. Even this doesn't sound like the rather rural downplay spin some want to place for the period of David. Egypt was the dominant influence but considered the kingships in this region important enough to establish diplomatic relations with, not just a few farmers organized under a local shiek. So if "archaeology" seems inconsistent with what we have in rare written confirmation, then archaeology obviously is being misinterpreted or is inadequate at this late date to truly provide the whole picture. Everyone does not write on clay tablets or build stone monuments that weather the centuries. Those that don't leave little behind to prove their ancient existence; that does not mean they didn't exist. Archaeology is a blunt and inadequate looking glass into the ancient past many times where corroborating written records tell the true story. The time of Saul and David at least should be compared to the level found in the Amarna tablets for the region.
JC
-
peacefulpete
You seem to have not read the link I provided. First the reason Shoshenq 1 was identified with the 'Shishak' of the OT was because of a mistranslation of the 29th victory on the list and the fondness of 19th century scholars for linking archeaology with Bible stories. The identification with 'Shishak' then led to it's dating using the OT. The list does not include Jerusalem as it certainly would have if if was the Capitol city or even a city at the time and was among the victories. The identification of many of the cities in the list are uncertain in fact it is felt by some that the list includes towns from former victories and added to the list for symmetry. I really don't know why you insist upon ignoring these things. This has nothing to do with so called antiBible bias.