While some scholars have argued that the Bible’s description of King David ruling over a great kingdom is exaggerated, new research suggests that the land overseen by the Old Testament king was more well-developed than some critical experts believe. Prof. Yosef Garfinkel of the Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University theorized in a paper published in the peer-reviewed Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology that King David ruled over an urban network of fortified cities, which supports the Bible’s description of his kingdom. Garfinkel outlined five different sites in his study — Khirbet Qeiyafa, Beth Shemesh, Lachish and Tell en-Naṣbeh and a country hill — finding that these locations had a fairly similar layout. Three of the sites had what’s known as a casemate wall, a double wall that typically protects a city or fortress. Some sites also contained Canaanite inscriptions, which the study suggested showed an “increasing demand for communication and a marker of centralized authority.”

As The Times of Israel reported, those who believe King David ruled over a few thousand Bedouin shepherds near Jerusalem fall into the “minimalist school” of archeological thought. The other school of thought aligns with the Bible’s description of King David ruling a vast kingdom. While Garfinkel’s paper appears to support the Bible’s account of King David’s kingdom, the professor said proving the Bible’s accuracy was not the purpose of the study. The scholar acknowledged that there are differing opinions on the usefulness of the Bible, but he argued, “that’s not science; that’s theology.”

“I hate to use the term ‘trying to prove the Bible’ because I’m not trying to prove anything,” Garfinkel told the outlet. “There are biblical traditions, and we can see if these have historical memories or not. … It doesn’t mean that everything, 100 percent, is historical memories. Sometimes there are mistakes. Sometimes there is wishful thinking. Sometimes there is ideology.”

Prof. Aren Maeir of Bar Ilan University believes that Garfinkel’s research is an “oversimplification,” referring to what he described as the paper’s “generalizations” as “problematic.” One of the issues is the controversy about whether Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judahite or Canaanite city, according to Maeir. While the Bar Illan University professor agrees that historically, King David existed, he does not see enough evidence to determine the size of his kingdom.

“It’s like when a fisherman tells you about the type of fish he caught, and with each story, his arms get wider and wider,” Maeir told TOI. “Is it a sardine, a mackerel, or a blue whale? If you read the biblical text and take it literally, then it’s a blue whale. I think that probably there was a small kingdom in Jerusalem, but we don’t know the influence that this kingdom had.” Maeir, clearly in the minimalist camp, will find any out that he can to deny the data found in the Biblical text.

While archaeology will always be limited it what it can definitively “prove”, these types of archaeological finds are very important in the area of apologetics to show that the Bible’s history is not some made up myth or legend but is based on facts. Minimalists will always try to downplay these discoveries because they are unwilling to accept the historicity of the Bible. But as more discoveries are made, the historicity of the Bible gains stronger credibility.

Biblical Connections: The Bible clearly describes King David as being a king over a large empire. If the Bible is inspired by God, then these archaeological finds help to establish this with extra-biblical support.

PRAY: Pray that more and more discoveries will continue to be unearthed and that as they are found, it will lead unbelievers to the truth and validity of God’s Word.