A leading Biblical minimalist scholar, Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield in England, has famously suggested that King David had about as much claim to be a historical figure as King Arthur.
Then in 1993, a basalt stela inscribed in Aramaic was discovered at Tel Dan that referred to Beyt David (the House of David). Until then the name David had not been found in the archaeological record. Here, however, was a mention of the dynasty of David a mere 150 years or so after the famous monarch lived. Moreover, it was a reference by an enemy, probably Hazael. All this did little to change Davies’s mind, however.a
In a new book, The Old Testament Between Theology and History (Westminster John Knox, 2008), another leading minimalist scholar, Niels Peter Lemche (who dedicates his book jointly to Davies and fellow minimalist scholar Thomas Thompson, identifying them as “comrades in arms”) considers the effect of the Beyt David inscription on the question of whether there really was a King David. After noting that “some scholars…consider [the inscription] to be a forgery” [without citing any such scholars], Lemche considers whether this inscription proves that there was a King David:
The appearance of “the house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription may refer to the Kingdom of Judah, but does it prove the historicity of King David? These fragments do not prove it, but if the interpretation of the text presented here [translating the Aramaic as “house of David”] is correct, it says that there once was a house—whatever the meaning of house in this connection—and the name of this house was “the house of David.” However, if we for a moment return to proper categories, a house is not a person. Even if the house is a historical fact, this does not automatically mean that a person of the name of David is also historical. The Tel Dan inscription does not prove that David is also historical. The Tel Dan inscription does not prove that David ever lived and ruled southern Palestine from Jerusalem; it is so-called circumstantial evidence for his existence. Even if this artifact is no proof of his existence, it at least makes it a little more likely that there really was a David.
A leading Biblical minimalist scholar, Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield in England, has famously suggested that King David had about as much claim to be a historical figure as King Arthur.
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
