rob117

There will probably be debate about the translations. Note that Galil is an Assyriologist, whereas the older translations were done by professional Hebrew epigraphers; his translation is also much more specific and less cautious than theirs. The article is definitely misleading in declining to mention the earlier translation, but that's journalism for you.

Regardless of which translation you go with, it indicates that in the 10th century (or the 9th if you go with the low chronology), there were scribes at what can be considered a border site. This implies a centralized administration (to set up border forts), and of course, if there were scribes, someone must have been training them. The argument is for a centralized state (this is what the evidence from monumental architecture and site distribution have indicated all along). Combining this with the other converging lines of evidence (biblical texts and the Dan Stele), the most likely explanation is that the founder of the dynasty that ruled this state was a man named David.

To say that the language is "Hebrew-ish" rather than Hebrew would be facetious. West Semitic dialects likely existed along a continuum in this period, with no clear boundaries between them. The argument is that of the "official" dialects known from later periods (8th century BC on), it resembles Hebrew the most (and would have likely been mutually intelligible with it); thus it can be classified as an early form of Hebrew.

Anat

The centralized state would probably be something much smaller than the assumed unified kingdom, probably even smaller than Hezekiah's Judah. And whether the inscription is from the alleged David's times or not is impossible to say.

rob117

Well, it certainly didn't reach to the Euphrates, but a straightforward look at the evidence from the distribution of sites with monumental architecture (Lachish, Gezer, Megiddo, Hazor, and Arad), as well as sites like this, would indicate that the entire area of later Israel and Judah had developed statehood at this point. The biblical portrayal of the united monarchy is likely, especially given the accuracy of texts dealing with this early period in terms of other incidental details (e.g. the Shishak raid, the geographical distribution of David's heroes in II Samuel matching Iron IIA settlement patterns, tribal genealogies that differ wildly from those in the Pentateuch and other later literature, and the prominence in the accounts of political entities like Gath, Zobah, Geshur, and Abel-Beth-Maacah that either did not exist or were no longer important in later periods). Even if the texts in their present form are late, they must have had some way of preserving this earlier information that would not have been relevant to someone living in 8th-7th century Judah-- and that means either earlier written texts (annals), or the accurate preservation of early details in the form of epic poetry.

Back Again

Rob, I think you are being very generous to the biblical portrayal of the united monarchy. I remain skeptical since there was such a big incentive for post exilic jews to fabricate glorious origin stories of existing cities and kingdoms. A similar situation occurred when Muslims entering Jerusalem fabricated a story involving Muhammed himself to stake a historical claim on the temple mount. Regardless, thanks for your detailed and well thought out responses.

Assuming the basics, that this artifact is authentic, properly dated, and linguistically related to Hebrew, it puts to rest the argument that local Canaanites (or Israelites or whatever we should call them) were not capable of putting down a written history in the 10th century.

rob117

You're welcome.

Historically speaking, the problem with seeing David as post-exilic fiction is that the picture given in the books of Samuel is not all that glorious. Yahweh is almost absent (he appears in the background as puppet master the way Chemosh does in the Mesha inscription, but there are no miracles). The text admits that David is a usurper, and that Saul had a legitimate heir, Ishbaal, with whom David had to fight in order to secure the throne over all Israel (although it attempts to take away Ishbaal's legitimacy by asserting that he was the son of a Canaanite concubine--possibly slander). David spends a good part of his career as a Gittite vassal at Ziklag, which is not something that a post-exilic nationalist author would have wanted to make up. He builds nothing, and overall comes off as a regional thug who managed to play various factions off against each other in order to secure his power. This picture is utterly realistic given what we know of the archaeology of the time, and of the process by which relatively egalitarian tribal societies coalesce into hierarchical chiefdoms and states. The few references to religious life in Samuel also do not fit the ideology of the post-exilic temple establishment.

The very fact that David is preceded by Saul would likely not exist in a late fabricated version of the story--if this were the case, the text would have Yahweh ordaining him as first king over all Israel, and that would be that.

(The biblical picture of Solomon in I Kings is another story; I believe much of this material is late monarchic and thus vastly exaggerated, but the author still probably had recourse to older sources from which he got the general outline, which he cites; e.g. "The Book of the Acts of Solomon.")

Anat

Rob, there is no way the country was under a single monarchy and no way Jerusalem had primacy over the much more economically developed northern part.

Anat

According to Finkelstein the David who was fleeing from Saul, running a racketeering deal with some ruffians in the desert and served as Akhish's vassal is the one whose story fits in the geography of 10th century Judah. The David who rules an empire represents the dreams of Josiah. The David of the earlier part of 2 Samuel is a composite character made to fill in the gap between the 2.

Back Again

Let me say that I do not see David as post-exilic fiction. David smells more like a folk hero of some sort with a tradition of heroic or even humorous legends about him. In the case of slaying Goliath, it appears that someone else's story was attributed to the more famous character of David after the fact. The story about David sneaking up and cutting a piece from Saul's robe while he was taking a dump would clearly be a memorable favorite for its comedic value. I'm sure David's exploits where he womanizes and even steals another man's wife were also memorable and popular in certain circles.

The post-exilic part could be squeezing him into a king's list and having him found cities and plan temples...and of course the fearless action hero that doesn't give a shit about anything has to be molded into a righteous patriarch. This is all speculation on my part.

rob117

I'll give you that the David stories are folkloristic, and I'm not claiming they originate in exactly the time of David-- just close enough to his reign to have retained the accurate memories of the local geopolitics of the time.

There's just too much circumstantial evidence for his place in the king list to have been added in the postexilic period-- the Dan Stele, a possible mention of bytdwd in the Mesha Stele which is accepted by most epigraphers, as well as the fact that the biblical account gets the general chronology and geopolitics of the late 10th-9th century kings accurate, all confirm his status as the founder of the Judean monarchy.

Here's the Kingdom of Macedon at the accession of Alexander:



Here's the Kingdom of Macedon at the time of his death:



If po-dunk Macedon can conquer mighty Persia, then po-dunk Judah can certainly conquer slightly-less-po-dunk Israel. Especially if Judah had outside support (e.g. Gath, Geshur, and Moab, as implied by Samuel).

The story of the United Monarchy cannot be purely Josianic, as Isaiah implicitly refers to it:

"The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria." (Isaiah 7:17)

This doesn't prove that the UM was historical of course, since it's still two centuries after the fact, but it proves that it was accepted as a given in Judean historical consciousness at least a century before Josiah's time.

Anat

What makes you think all of Isaiah 1-39 was written by the same author? Better people than myself found multiple later interpolations.