Another Day Another Claim to a Davidic Discovery

Posted on by

Whatever happened to measured historical investigation?  When did it become appropriate to make unsubstantiated claims without blinking? In sum, what evidence is there on the ground at the site to support the claim that the structure is ‘David’s Palace’? Here’s the headline:

King David’s Palace was Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah

Oh really?  So there are inscriptions too which the archaeologists have also uncovered in situ which mention David?  It’s curious that the report doesn’t mention them.  They would seem important…

Royal storerooms were also revealed in the joint archaeological excavation of the Hebrew University and the Israel Antiquities Authority at Khirbet Qeiyafa *** These are the two largest buildings known to have existed in the tenth century BCE in the Kingdom of Judah

Two royal public buildings, the likes of which have not previously been found in the Kingdom of Judah of the tenth century BCE, were uncovered this past year by researchers of the Hebrew University and the Israel Antiquities Authority at Khirbet Qeiyafa – a fortified city in Judah dating to the time of King David and identified with the biblical city of Shaarayim.

One of the buildings is identified by the researchers, Professor Yossi Garfinkel of the Hebrew University and Saar Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority, as David’s palace, and the other structure served as an enormous royal storeroom.

And then

The palace and storerooms are evidence of state sponsored construction and an administrative organization during King David’s reign. “This is unequivocal evidence of a kingdom’s existence, which knew to establish administrative centers at strategic points”, the archaeologists say. “To date no palaces have been found that can clearly be ascribed to the early tenth century BCE as we can do now. Khirbet Qeiyafa was probably destroyed in one of the battles that were fought against the Philistines circa 980 BCE. The palace that is now being revealed and the fortified city that was uncovered in recent years are another tier in understanding the beginning of the Kingdom of Judah”. 

One could quibble but they’re probably right about the site being some sort of administrative center and it may even be a Judean one.  BUT- the linkage to David is purely imaginary.  And utterly speculative.

4 thoughts on “Another Day Another Claim to a Davidic Discovery”

    • Wishful thinking on your part. Please describe in detail the evidence from the site which links david to it.

      Like

  2. That, I can’t do. But it does nullify one of the minimalist arguments that there is no archeological evidence of a royal administration in the 10th century BCE in Judah.

    Like

    • everything after but is irrelevant. if the claim is that david’s palace has been found but there’s no evidence in support of that claim, the claim is nonsense.

      Like

Comments are closed.