A few weeks ago, I was at a conference, and many people came to me excitedly saying they had read a news story online about new archaeological findings that support the historical reliability of the Bible or even “prove” the Bible. This caught my attention after I read the articles that excited them. What I said in response usually disappointed them. Let’s see why.
The findings they were all talking about was that a team of scientists and archaeologists from the Weizmann Institute conducted a large-scale project using carbon dating to date 103 samples found in fills around Jerusalem.[1] They found that many of these samples hailed from the time of David (10th century BCE). According to the newspaper reports, based on these samples, Jerusalem was a larger city than many more sceptical scholars of the Bible. The implication is that David and Solomon weren’t just highland chieftains but Kings who ruled over a large and sprawling Jerusalem.
What Are we to Make of all This?
Firstly, Eliat Mazar argued, based on her archaeological work, that there is significant evidence of Jerusalem being a major capital in David’s time.[2] So, this C14 work might back up her claims, which are considered controversial. Secondly, it is interesting to note Finkelstein’s thoughts on the study.[3] He says in the Haaretz article that “Most samples originated from less than ideal context” and therefore, this “may introduce an ‘old-dates effect.” This is ironic because one of the arguments that Finkelstein uses to redate the “Solomonic” monumental gates at Gezer, Meggido and Hazor from the 10th century and the 9th century he uses Jezreel as a critical site for this redating.[4] But as my blog critiquing Finkelstein’s redating of these structures shows, Jezreel is a very disturbed site. It, therefore, cannot be a significant factor in the archaeological remains in question.[5] This shows you that Finkelstein, like many of us, is guilty of using some arguments when they prove his point and ignoring the same type of valid argument when it contradicts his theories. Also, he doesn’t demonstrate why a less-than-ideal context affects the C14 findings, as what is usually tested in C14 dating is found as waste or burnt material anyway.
The New Findings and the Bible
But let’s turn to the crux of the news articles and analyse their claims. The news articles suggest that David and Solomon ruled over a large and expansive Jerusalem; therefore, these findings back up the Biblical picture of David and Solomon. But I want to ask where the Bible says Jerusalem was a considerable capital. From the 2 Samuel 5-6 picture, Jerusalem in David’s time is not the colossal city we might expect from Sunday school drawings and scholars’ imaginations. Daniel Pioske Puts it this way:
“The inhabitants of a sixty-hectare, well-fortified capital city of the late Iron Age, to cite an important example, lived in a much different Jerusalem than the one portrayed in 2 Sam 5–6. Meaningful about the description of Jerusalem in these chapters is that the site does not include those imposing towers, gates, or expanded settlements to the west and east of the City of David that would have been visible and familiar to a late Iron Age inhabitant of Jerusalem Instead, this Jerusalem is depicted as a site guarded only by a solitary citadel and the taunts of its inhabitants. …. David’s construction activity in these chapters is conspicuously limited, with this absence being all the more striking in light of the important ideological implications of a ruler’s building achievements in the broader ancient Near East. Yet, instead of magnifying David’s building measures, the storyteller of this account states tersely that David dwelled in a stronghold already put in place by the settlement’s previous inhabitants (2 Sam 5:9a) and that the new ruler revamps the site only from the Millo “inward.” [6]
So it seems like the Biblical writers described a Jerusalem in the 10th century that was either meagre or, if Jerusalem was a large city, the Biblical writers didn’t seek to magnify David’s status by stating that he ruled over a great city.
What do we Take Away From All This?
We need to be careful when scholars tell us what the Bible says. In my continued study of the archaeology and history of ancient Israel, I have read what scholars say the Bible says and then used archaeology or historical arguments to prove the historical unreliability of the Bible. But then, when I read the Biblical text itself, I find that the Bible never claims what scholars say it claims. This is what is happening with the scholarly reconstruction of Jerusalem. The Biblical writers didn’t really comment about Jerusalem’s nature and scope, which shows their care in not making up stories or ideas out of thin air, which would aggrandise the Biblical heroes. I am sorry to disappoint my friends, but these latest findings do nothing to demonstrate the historicity or non-historicity of the Bible. Did David rule over a large city, as these latest findings suggest? He might have. Should this impact our views regarding the historicity of the Biblical account? Not at all.
[1] See Jerusalem in King David’s Time Was Much Larger Than Previously Thought, Researchers Say – Archaeology – Haaretz.com. The Journal article that the above news story is based on is Johanna Regev, Yuval Gadot, Joe Uziel, Ortal Chalaf, Yiftah Shalev, Helena Roth, Nitsan Shalom, Nahshon Szanton, Efrat Bocher, Charlotte L. Pearson, David M. Brown, Eugenia Mintz, Lior Regev, and Elisabetta Boaretto. 2024. ‘Radiocarbon chronology of Iron Age Jerusalem reveals calibration offsets and architectural developments’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121
[2] For example, see Eliat Mazar, Did I Find King David’s Palace? – Biblical Archaeology Society
[3] Israel Finkelstein holds that Archaeology, in large part, disproves the historicity of the Hebrew Bible. See Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts (Free Press: New York).
[4] See Israel Finkelstein. 1996. “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View.” Levant 28, 183
[5] For an outline and critique of Finkelstien’s readating sceme see my essay Is There Archaeological Evidence for Solomon’s Kingdom? A Response to Israel Finkelstein’s Low Chronology – Bible Archaeology and History (wordpress.com)
[6] Daniel D. Pioske. 2015. David’s Jerusalem: Between Memory and History (Routledge: New York), 111
