king david and jerusalem - myth and reality

8/10/2019 King David and Jerusalem - Myth and Reality

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/king-david-and-jerusalem-myth-and-reality 1/7

6 Sep 2003

King David and Jerusalem- Myth and Reality

The Israel Rev iew of Arts and Letters - 1996/102 TOC | KING DAVID | MONTEFIORE | FOLK ART | ETHIOPIAN CHURCH | MAYOR |

LLOSA | OZ | AMICHAI | ZACH | BEN-YEHUDA | LOTAN | JERUSALEM SYNDROME

| DRAWINGS

King David and Jerusalem: Myth

and Reality

Daniel Gavron

Stele wi th theinscription Beit

David (House of

Dav id), Tel Dan,

9th centur y BCE

To mos t Israelis i t is axiomatic that the celebrations for the

3,000th anniversary of the conquest of Jerusalem by King

David mark a real and tangible event; but this is far from

certain. The biblical account of the capture of the city is the

only one we have, and in the opinion of most modern

scholars , the Bible is not an entirely reliable his torical

document. Corroborating evidence is required, and some

indeed exists; but it is not conclusive. When all the

available information has been assembled, the mos t that

can be said is that there was probably an Israelite ruler

called David, who made Jerusalem his capital sometime in

the tenth century bce. However, the precise date cannot be

determined, and consequently there is no way of knowing

exactly when the anniversary falls.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of ancient

Jerusalem. Excavations in the City of David, today the

village of Silwan, jus t south of the Old City walls , show that

the site has been continuously occupied for some 5,000

years. Closer to David's purported time, excavations

directed by the late Prof. Yigal Shiloh, uncovered a

monumental 20 metre stepped structure, and dated it to the

12th-10th century bce. This could have been the foundation

of the Jebusi te stronghold, captured and subsequently

expanded by David.

In addition to the archaeological evidence, Jerusalem

appears in several ancient documents, apart from the

Bible. The earliest known reference dates to 1900 bce in

the so-called "Execration Texts." The names of the

enemies of the Egyptian ruler were ins cribed on pottery,

which was then smashed in the hope of bringing

destruction upon them. Jerusalem at that time was

apparently an enemy of Egypt, as indicated by letters written

on clay tablets found in the ruins of Amarna, the palace of

3/14/2011 King David and Jerusalem- Myth and R…

mfa.gov.il/…/King+David+and+Jerusal… 1



the reforming Pharaoh Akhnetan. In one of them, dating to

the 14th century bce, Abdu-Heba, the king of Jerusalem,

writes pledging his loyalty to the Egyptian ruler.

Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible

for the existence of King David. There are no references to

him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time,

and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed

to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July

21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham

Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found atriangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm.

inscribed in Aramaic. It was subs equently identified as part

of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later

smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates

to the ninth century bce, that is to say, about a century after

David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words

Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first

near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is

not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king

called David established a dynasty in Israel during the

relevant period.

Another piece of significant evidence comes from Dr. AviOfer's archaeological survey conducted in the hills of Judea

during the last decade, which shows that in the 11th-10th

centuries bce, the population of Judah almost doubled

compared to the preceding period. The so-called Rank Size

Index (RSI), a method of analyzing the size and positioning

of settlements to evaluate to what extent they were a s elf-

contained group, indicates that during this period - David's

supposed period - a strong centre of population existed at

the edge of the region. Jerusalem is the most likely

candidate for this centre.

To sum up the evidence then: in the tenth century bce, a

dynasty was es tablished by David; the population doubledin the hill country of Judah, which acquired a strong central

point, probably Jerusalem , a previously settled site that

was important enough to be mentioned in Egyptian

documents. These facts are certainly consis tent with the

biblical account; but, before examining the biblical version,

we should cons ider the nature of the Bible and of the

historical material it contains.

The Bible is not - and was never intended to be - a

historical document. A work of theology, law, ethics and

literature, it does contain historical information; but if we

want to evaluate this information we should consider when,

how and why the Bible was compiled.

Until comparatively recently, the Bible was accepted as the

word of God by mos t Jews and Chris tians, and therefore

scholarly works dealing with it, such as the Talmud,

rabbinical commentaries, and the work of Christian

scholars , concentrated on its interpretation.

In the 19th century ce, the "Age of Reason," scholars began

subjecting the biblical texts to linguistic, textual, and literary

analysis , noting inconsistencies and interrupted rhythms,

comparing styles, and placing the text within the

archaeological, historical and geographical background.





ns u e o rc aeo ogy. e r conc us ons were pu s e

in "From Nomadism to Monarchy," edited by Prof. Israel

Finkelstein and Prof. Nadav Na'aman.

Around 1200 bce, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to

the east, joined by elements from Anatolia, the Aegean, and

the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the

hill country of Canaan. A large proportion - probably a

majority of this population - were refugees from the

Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of

their periodic invasions.

The conclusion is som ewhat startling to Bible readers who

know the Canaanites portrayed in the Bible as imm oral

idolaters: mos t of the Israelites were in fact formerly

Canaanites. The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the

Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the

conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on

legends that the various elements brought with them from

their countries of origin. The consolidation of the Israelites

into a nation was not the result of wanderings in the desert

and divine revelation, but came from the need to defend

themselves against the Philistines, who settled in the

Canaanite coastal plain more or less at the same time theIsraelites were establishing themselves in the hills.

Thus the founders of Israel were not Abraham and Moses;

but Saul and David. It was apparently Saul who

consolidated the hill farmers under his rule and created

fighting units capable of confronting the Philis tines. It was

David who defeated the Philis tines and united the hill

farmers wi th the people of the Canaanite plains, thus

establishing the Kingdom of Israel and its capital city.

It is generally accepted among scholars today that there is

genuine his torical material in the Books of Samuel, which

describe the careers of Saul and David; but even thesebooks must be critically examined to distinguish between

legend and fact, in as much as it can ever be known. Some

of the materials in Samuel I and II , notably the lis ts of

officers, officials , and dis tricts are believed to be very early,

poss ibly even dating to the time of David or Solomon.

These documents were probably in the hands of the

Deuteronomis ts when they started to compi le the material

three centuries later.

Apart from the lists, the account appears to have

undergone two separate acts of editorial slanting. The

original writers show a strong bias against Saul, and in

favour of David and Solomon. Many years later, theDeuteronomis ts edited the material in a manner that

conveyed their religious m essage, inserting reports and

anecdotes that strengthened their monotheistic doctrine.

When it comes to Jerusalem , however, the challenge is to

set the biblical texts in the context of the archaeological and

historical evidence.

The biblical account is terse:

And the king and his men went unto the Jebusites ,

the inhabitants of the land; which spake unto David,

saying, Except thou take away the blind and the





ame, ou s a no come er; n ng av

cannot come in hither. Nevertheless, David took the

stronghold of Zion; the same is the city of David. And

David said on that day, whosoever getteth up to the

gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites and the lame and

the blind, that are hated of David's soul, he shall be

chief and captain. Wherefore they said, the blind

and the lame shall not come into the house. So

David dwelt in the fort and cal led it the city of David.

[II Samuel 5: 6-9]

We have already seen that archaeologists uncovered a

large stepped structure that could have been the bas is of

the Jebusite town, so the two questions that arise are: how

did David and his men get into the town, and what is the

significance of the rather obscure reference to the "blind

and the lame."

In 1865, Charles Warren, a British army engineer,

discovered beneath the village of Silwan, a shaft leading to

a tunnel connecting with the Gihon spring. For some time it

was taken as self-evident that the "gutter" (tzinnor in

Hebrew) of the biblical account was this shaft, named

Warren's Shaft, after its d iscoverer.

Subsequently, similar systems were discovered at other

sites, such as Hazor in Upper Galilee and Megiddo in the

Jezreel Valley, and dated to a later period. As a result of

this, a number of ingenious interpretations of the word

tzinnor were sugges ted, for example, a grappling iron for

climbing the walls , or the windpipes of the defenders, or

the water-source but not the shaft.

However, the mos t recent investigations have shown that

the City of David water system is based on natural fault

lines. It was man-improved rather than man-made.

Therefore it could have been earlier than the Megiddo and

Hazor systems. In any case, few archaeologists are now

prepared to date these systems precisely.

Consequently there is no reason to reject the original

ass umption that David's men penetrated the Gihon spring,

crept along the tunnel and climbed up the shaft into the city,

taking the defenders by surprise. More complex is the

matter of the blind and lame. The Roman-Jewish historian,

Flavius Josephus, writing in the first century ce, in an

apparent attempt to mock David, proclaimed that the city

was s o impregnable that even blind and lame soldiers

could defend it.

In modern times, the late Prof. Yigael Yadin was the first to

suggest a solution that has become generally accepted, by

examining the his tory of other nations in the region. Noting

that the Jebusites of Jerusalem were probably of Anatolian-

Hittite origin, Yadin made the connection to Hattusha, the

ancient Hittite capital, where documents were found that

described soldiers taking an oath of loyalty to the ruler.

The soldiers were paraded in front of a blind woman and a

deaf man, and told that anyone failing to live up to his oath

"will be as these" - that is, will be stricken blind or deaf. The

pass age about the taking of Jerusalem may refer to a





,

lame in the front lines as a way of casting a spell on the

attackers, threatening them with blindness and lam eness .

The Bible testifies that David did not mass acre or expel the

Jebusite survivors. Two biblical passages make it clear

that they continued to live in David's capital:

And the children of Benjam in did not drive out the

Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the

Jebusites dwell with the children of Bethlehem in

Jerusalem unto this day. [Judges I: 21]

A passage in the book of Joshua is alm ost identical, except

that it refers to the "children of Judah" instead of the

"children of Benjamin." The account in the Book of Samuel,

which s tates that "David built around from the Millo inward,"

suggests that David expanded the city to accomodate his

family, court, officials and sold iers. No one is certain exactly

what this means; but most experts connect "Millo" with

milui, the Hebrew for (land) fill. It may refer to the expansion

of the Jebusite city by terracing the hillside, filling up the

terraces, and building on them. This would be cons istent

with the dis covery of the stepped structure in the city of

David.

That David showed respect for the Jebusites - even their

property rights - is clear from the description of how the

Israelite king acquired a site for a s acrificial altar. Although

Araunah the Jebus ite, poss ibly the former ruler of the city,

offers i t to him free of charge, David ins ists on paying for it:

And the king said unto Araunah; Nay, but I will surely

buy it from thee at a price; neither will I offer burnt

offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth

cost me nothing. So David bought the oxen and the

threshing floor for fifty shekels of silver. [II Samuel

24: 24]

Other passages in the Books of Samuel make it clear that

David employed Jebusites in his army and administration.

Uriah the Hittite is an obvious example. Some scholars

also sugges t that Zadok, David's second high priest, was a

Jebusite priest of Jerusalem. The Bible shows him as a

descendant of Aaron, the brother of Moses; but, as we have

seen, s cholars are divided over the his torical authenticity of

Moses and Aaron. Many see the appointment of two high

priests as a balancing act between north and south. The

two entities, although uni ted under Saul and David, showed

signs of division during their reigns, and were irrevocably

spli t after Solomon's dem ise. Abiathar, the sole survivor of

the priests of Nob, was from the north; Zadok could have

come either from Jerusalem, or from further south.

We have already mentioned that the lists of territories,

officers and officials are almost certainly the oldest and

mos t historical parts of the Books of Samuel. Two lis ts of

David's officials contain names , such as Adoram, who was

in charge of the levy, Seraiah the scribe, and Jehoshaphat,

the royal herald. Prof. Benjamin Mazar has pointed out that

these names were Canaanite, and concluded that David

evidently employed officials of the Canaanite city-states in



king david and jerusalem - myth and reality

Documents