The Fight Goes On

09 Sep

Is it David’s palace or not? Here are two  conflicting articles (in part as BAS does weird things like forcing you to join their library to read what was written) on the topic:

“In 1995, not long before he passed away, I spoke with my grandfather, Professor Benjamin Mazar of Hebrew University, about my idea. I told him I thought there was a high likelihood of finding remains from King David’s palace near Kenyon’s Area H. Aside from the archeological discoveries there, the site fit quite well with the notice in 2 Samuel 5:17, which describes David in the City of David going down, or descending (yered), from his residence to the citadel or fortress (metzudah). The citadel or fortress to which he descended was of course the Canaanite/Jebusite stronghold, the Fortress of Zion (Metzudat Tsion; see 2 Samuel 5:7) that he had conquered a short time earlier. It is clear from the topography of the City of David that David could have gone down to the citadel only from the north, as the city is surrounded by deep valleys on every other side. It also makes sense that the Jebusite stronghold would have been located at the high point in the City of David, that is, in its northernmost section. From here, the fortress would not only command all areas of the city but would also provide for the defense of the city on its only vulnerable side—the north, which had no natural defense. If this was in fact the case, one can infer that after conquering the city, David’s palace was constructed north of this citadel (David went down to the fortress) and outside the northern fortifications of the city.”


“Eilat Mazar excavated a complex structure that includes a massive eastern wall. Within this Large Stone Structure, as Mazar named it, were layers of Iron Age I remains, showing that it must have been built no later than the Iron Age I (c. 1200–1000/950 B.C.E.). Even so, Mazar identified the building as likely having been the palace King David built for himself in the early Iron Age IIa. Avraham Faust, however, argues that the archaeological evidence indicates a construction date before David’s time. According to Faust, Mazar’s archaeology methods for dating the structure are good, and David may have used the structure as his palace, but Mazar fudges the dates a bit to say that King David built it”

Did she find David’s palace. I am inclined to side with her BUT the trouble with ancient buildings is that 1. more than one descendent could have occupied it and left remains dating to the 8th century though the structure was built in the 1oth. We have modern examples of this today.

2. The buildings were used by .multiple people for multiple purposes. Since David captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites, who knows if the building he used as a palace was built by them or by David, 2 Sam.5. We have examples of multi-use buildings today as well which would confuse any researcher working without written mss. to tell them what the structures were actually used for. Especially if the buildings were in use for over 100 years straight.

3. The artifacts found in the buildings may not be original to the people or the occupants. Again, 2 Samuel 8 tell sus of the different trophies David brought back to Jerusalem. Did he store them in his palace, we do not know the passage does not say. But still, people have in their homes items that are souvenirs from travels and would cause headaches for future researchers trying to decide what took place in their history.

When looking at those who research, write, or dig it up, one must look at their beliefs, their motivations, their agenda and so on before deciding if they are telling the truth. we can’t just take one or two articles at their word, we must be diligent and factor in God’s guidance to help decide the issue.

Comments Off on The Fight Goes On

Posted by on September 9, 2012 in archaeology


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: