Topic 32 of 35 - Your Place in the Learning Journey
David, Solomon, and Archaeology
David and Solomon occupy the apex of the Old Testament's monarchic narrative. David is presented as Israel's greatest king - the man after God's own heart, the conqueror of Jerusalem, the founder of the dynasty to which the messianic promises are attached. Solomon is presented as the builder of the Temple, the wisest man who ever lived, the ruler of a vast empire at the height of Israel's power. The historical questions about both figures have been among the most intensely debated in biblical scholarship for the past thirty years.
The discovery of the Tel Dan inscription in 1993 was a landmark moment. The Aramaic inscription, dated to the ninth century BCE, refers to "the house of David" - the first extrabiblical reference to David ever found. This settled the question of whether David was a historical figure; he was. What remains debated is the scale and character of his kingdom. The biblical account describes a significant empire stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates. Archaeological evidence for a state of that size in the tenth century BCE is thin, and some scholars argue that the United Monarchy was a modest highland chiefdom rather than an empire.
The archaeology of Jerusalem itself is central to the debate. The City of David excavations have found evidence of significant construction and administrative activity in the tenth century. What excavator Eilat Mazar argued was the remains of a large public building possibly identifiable as David's palace, other archaeologists interpret differently. The disputed nature of Jerusalem archaeology is complicated by the political and religious sensitivities surrounding excavation in the city.
For readers of the Bible, the debate about the historical David and Solomon need not be destabilizing. The theological claims the Bible makes about these figures - that God works through flawed human beings, that covenant faithfulness matters more than military or economic success, that the dynasty's ultimate significance is messianic rather than political - do not stand or fall with the question of whether Solomon's empire was as large as 1 Kings describes.