Anointed - Scholarly Article

The story jumps forward about seven centuries.
It moves from Abraham’s time to the era of Israel as a nation.
This includes the Exodus, Moses, and the early monarchy.

Episode Ten takes place roughly seven centuries after Episode Nine. The narrative shifts from Abraham’s life to the established nation of Israel.

After Abraham, his descendants grow through Isaac and Jacob (Israel). A famine leads Jacob’s family into Egypt, where they eventually settle.

Over time, the Israelites become enslaved by the Egyptians. God then raises up Moses to lead them out of slavery in the Exodus.

Following their escape, they journey through the wilderness. At Mount Sinai, God makes a covenant with Israel and gives them the Law.

Because of disobedience, the people wander for a generation. After Moses’ death, Joshua leads them into the promised land.

The land is gradually taken from various Canaanite groups. This period is led by figures known as judges.

Eventually, the people ask for a king. The prophet Samuel anoints Saul as Israel’s first king.

Episode Ten begins around this transition into monarchy. Israel is now a nation settled in the land, moving into a new phase of leadership.

Episode Ten of The Legacy of Adam is set some seven centuries after the events of Episode Nine.

After Episode Nine, The Legacy of Adam jumps forward some seven centuries to the time when Abraham’s descendants (now known as the children of Israel) are established as a nation in “the promised land” (that is, the land promised to them by God). Abraham’s descendants (i.e. Isaac’s son Jacob and his family, including Jacob’s youngest son Joseph) had been forced into Egypt by a famine. Having settled there, the growing population of “the children of Israel” (“Israel” being a name given to Jacob by God in Genesis 32:22-32 & 35:10),[297] had become enslaved by the Egyptians. Later, under the prophet Moses, God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, leading them into the wilderness (in “the Exodus”) to begin a journey to take possession of “the promised land.” At Mount Saini, God made a covenant with Israel and gave them laws (including the famous “Ten Commandments”). After the hard-hearted adult Israelites had died off during a period of nomadic “wandering,” and following the death of Moses, God finally led Israel into the promised land under the leadership of Joshua, gradually dispossessing various Canaanite tribes from the land in a process that continued under the auspices of various religious leaders called “judges.”[298] As Episode Ten of The Legacy of Adam picks up the narrative, the people of Israel have recently decided they wanted to be ruled by a king, and Saul (whom Muslims will know as Talut[299]) had been appointed as king by the prophet Samuel.

God does not judge by outward appearance, but by the heart.
Human standards focus on strength and status, but God sees character.
David is chosen because of his inner trust and courage.

The rejection of David’s older brothers shows that God’s measures are different from human standards. People tend to judge based on appearance, strength, and status. In 1 Samuel 16:7, God tells Samuel that He looks at the heart, not outward appearance. This means God evaluates a person’s inner character, motives, and faith.

David’s older brothers appeared more suitable as king. They likely looked stronger, more experienced, and more impressive. However, their later fear of Goliath reveals a lack of trust in God. Their outward strength did not match inner courage.

God does not make base his judgements on the superficial standard of outward appearance, but on his knowledge of a person’s inner self or “heart.”

The God of truth is not misled by superficial appearances. God is quoted in this episode as saying to the prophet Samuel: “I do not look at the thing people look at, for people look at the outward appearance but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7.) David’s three oldest brothers may have looked more handsome or impressive than he did, but they were afraid of Goliath, the champion of the Philistine army, whereas David’s zeal for God meant he was not afraid (see 1 Samuel 17).

God consistently values humility over status in his choice of leaders.
Biblical leadership is defined by service, not dominance.
David’s selection reflects this pattern rather than contradicting wisdom.

According to the biblical tradition, humility is a central virtue that God looks for in those who follow him, including leaders. This is not an isolated idea, but a consistent theme across both the Old and New Testaments.

In Numbers 12:3, Moses, Israel’s foundational leader, is described as “very humble,” despite his authority and unique role. Similarly, the instructions for kings in Deuteronomy 17:14–20 are designed to prevent pride by limiting power, wealth, and self-exaltation. The king is meant to remain under God’s law, not above it.

This principle is reinforced and clarified by Jesus. In Luke 22:27, he presents himself as one who serves, and in Mark 10:42–45, he contrasts worldly rulers, who dominate others, with godly leadership, which is marked by service and self-sacrifice. Greatness, in this framework, is redefined as serving others.

David’s selection fits directly into this pattern. He is chosen not because of external qualifications such as age, status, or military strength, but because of his heart and posture before God (1 Samuel 16:7). His humility makes him suitable for leadership in a way that outward strength alone does not.

Interestingly, this biblical emphasis is echoed in modern leadership research. Scholars Edward D. Hess and Katherine Ludwig note that humility is strongly associated with better decision-making, self-awareness, and relational effectiveness.

Seen this way, God’s choice of David is not a departure from wisdom, but an expression of a deeper leadership principle: that character, especially humility, is more foundational than power or appearance.

According to the biblical tradition, humility is a key virtue that God looks for in those who follow him, including those who act as leaders.

Humility is one of the key moral virtues encouraged in the Bible.[300] For example, in Numbers 12:3, the prophet Moses, who led the children of Israel out of their slavery in Egypt, is described as “a very humble man.” (ESV.) When God first gives a job description for the kings of Israel in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy 17:14-20, his instructions are designed to encourage them to serve God and God’s people with humility.

In the New Testament, Jesus points out to his disciples that he has come “among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27), and he teaches them to emulate his own example of humble leadership:

You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions act as tyrants over them. But it is not so among you. On the contrary, whoever wants to become great among you will be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you will be a slave to all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:42-45, CSB.)

Interestingly, leadership scholars Edward D. Hess and Katherine Ludwig report that a growing body of psychological literature “correlates humility with higher physical and psychological well-being and interpersonal and interpersonal advantages, particularly in the context of intellectual concerns, metacognitive abilities, leadership, and relationship building.”[301]

Archaeological discoveries since the 1990s provide independent evidence for David.
The Tel Dan Stele refers to the “house of David” outside the Bible.
This shifted scholarly consensus from skepticism to general acceptance.

Until the late 20th century, many secular scholars doubted whether King David was a historical figure, often viewing him as a later legendary construct. This skepticism was largely due to the lack of extra-biblical evidence.

The situation changed significantly with the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele in 1993. This 9th-century B.C.E Aramaic inscription, likely commissioned by the Aramean king Hazael, refers to the “house of David” (byt dwd). This is widely understood as a dynastic reference, similar to how other ancient kingdoms were named after founding rulers.

As Kenneth Kitchen explains, this was the first widely recognized non-biblical reference to David, dating to within about a century of his lifetime. That proximity strengthens its historical value.

Similarly, Eric H. Cline notes that this discovery played a decisive role in shifting the debate, leading many scholars to accept David as a real historical person rather than a myth.

Additional inscriptions support this conclusion. The Mesha Stele, attributed to the Moabite king Mesha, likely contains a reference to the “house of David,” though the text is partially damaged. Epigrapher André Lemaire argues that “David” is the most plausible reconstruction of the text.

An Egyptian topographical list from around 925 B.C.E. may also refer to a region associated with David, possibly rendered as “Heights of David.” While this reading is more debated, it fits linguistically and historically within known variations of the name.

Taken together, these discoveries provide independent, non-biblical confirmation of a Davidic dynasty. As a result, most contemporary secular scholars now accept that David was a historical figure, even if debates remain about the size and power of his kingdom.

In other words, the shift in consensus was not driven by theological arguments, but by new archaeological data that made the earlier skepticism increasingly difficult to maintain.

Archaeological discoveries since 1993 have convinced even secular scholars that King David was a real historical figure who founded a dynasty in Judah.

Prior to 1993, secular scholars generally doubted the historical existence of King David (c. 1030-970 B.C.E), seeing him as a legendary figure. However, archaeological discoveries have now proved the existence of King David (whom many Muslims will know as Dawud[302]), who is consequently generally acknowledged by secular scholars to have been a historical figure. The 9^th century B.C.E Tel Dan Stela references the kingdom of Judah as “the house of David.” As Kenneth Kitchen explains:

The publication of fragments of an Old Aramaic stela from Tel Dan in 1993/1995 bought to light the first recognized nonbiblical mention of the tenth-century king David, in a text that reflected events of the year 841 and would have been set up at no great interval after that date.^[303]

Eric Cline, a Professor of classics, anthropology and history at George Washington University, explains that: “the finding of this inscription brought an end to the debate and settled the question of whether David was an actual historical person . . .”^[304]

Discovered in 1993, the Tel Dan Stele is:

a dark, medium-sized, broken victory stone . . .  found in secondary use as part of an ancient wall in the northern city of Tel Dan. Its original use had been as a ninth century B.C.E celebratory inscription belonging to Syria’s King Hazael, a glorification of his triumphs over Israel’s King Jehoram and Judah’s King Ahaziah.[305]

The inscription reads (emphasis added):

And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha]riots and two thousand horsemen. [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]yahu son of [Joram kin]g of the house of David. And I set . . .[306]

Fig. The Tel Dan Stela, with the “House of David” highlighted (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JRSLM_300116_Tel_Dan_Stele_01.jpg).

As Christopher Eames reports:

after much examination and questioning, retranslating and re-questioning, the Tel Dan Stele has been accepted as a genuine piece . . . . And while it is the most certain of all references to King David, there are two other artifacts that, with near certainty, make similar mention of the king.[307]

One of these artifacts is the Mesha Stele:

This victory stone belonged to another man mentioned in the Bible—the Moabite King Mesha. This stone celebrated Moab’s rebellion against the king of Israel around the middle of the ninth century B.C.E (2 Kings 3). Toward the base of the inscription, the same phrase used on the Tel Dan Stele can be found: “house of David.” Although, due to damage, the initial “D” is missing (i.e., BT[D]WD). According to epigrapher and philologist André Lemaire, who carefully studied the artifact, any reading other than “David” would be an awkward fit.[308]

Fig. The Mesha Stele (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele#/media/File:P1120870_Louvre_st%C3%A8le_de_M%C3%A9sha_AO5066_rwk.JPG)

The final artefact of relevance is:

an Egyptian inscription dating to around the end of the 10th century B.C.E., which describes a part of Israel’s Negev desert region as the “Heights of David.” Leading Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen translated the Egyptian inscription as H[Y]DBT DWT. The first word indicates “heights,” or “highlands.” The second word presents more of a problem at first glance. The name “David” is properly written on the first two inscriptions as DWD. So what of DWT? Kitchen came across a sixth-century A.D. inscription from Ethiopia, which referred to David as Davit. Hence, for this general region, there is a precedent for the name DWT, Davit. As with the Mesha Stele, “David” seems to be the best-fitting translation. Naming this area of the Negev as the “Heights of David” also makes sense because it was in the area to which David fled and commanded while on the run from King Saul.[309]

This Egyptian Topographical List dates to 925 B.C., around 45 years after David’s death, which as Kitchen notes is “within living memory of the man.”^[310]

There is growing archaeological evidence for a centralized Judahite state in David’s time.
Finds from multiple sites suggest urban planning, fortifications, and administration.
While debate remains, most scholars now reject the idea that David was only a local chieftain.

The question of whether David ruled a true kingdom or was merely a local chieftain has been heavily debated, particularly between “minimalist” and “maximalist” scholars. Minimalists have argued that the biblical accounts were written much later and exaggerate David’s status.

However, this view has increasingly come under pressure from archaeological discoveries. As Kenneth Kitchen argues, there is no concrete evidence that the accounts of David and Solomon were invented in later periods, making the minimalist hypothesis largely speculative.

At the same time, new archaeological data points toward the existence of a developing state in Judah during the 10th century B.C.E. Excavations in Jerusalem, including work by Eilat Mazar, have uncovered large structures that may indicate significant building activity, possibly associated with a royal center.

A 2024 peer-reviewed study based on carbon dating from multiple sites in Jerusalem suggests that the city was more developed and populated during this period than previously thought, challenging the idea that it was merely a small village.

Additional evidence comes from administrative artifacts. As noted by Jimmy Hardin, the discovery of “bullae” (seal impressions) indicates organized governance and elite activity, which are typical features of a functioning state.

Sites such as Tel ‘Eton show signs of major transformation in the early 10th century B.C.E., including large buildings and urban expansion. Archaeologists Avraham Faust and Yair Sapir link these developments to a broader highland polity, likely corresponding to the biblical united monarchy.

Further support comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa, where Yosef Garfinkel and colleagues argue that the site reflects an organized urban society consistent with early state formation. Similar planning patterns across multiple fortified cities suggest centralized control.

Finally, the network of fortifications identified by Tali Erickson-Gini indicates territorial management and strategic defense, further supporting the existence of a structured political entity.

Taken together, this evidence does not prove every biblical detail, but it strongly supports the view that David was more than a tribal leader. Instead, he likely ruled an emerging kingdom with increasing administrative and military organization, broadly consistent with the biblical account.

A steady accumulation of archaeological evidence has emerged in the twenty-first century that corroborates the biblical picture of a united monarchy in the 10^th century B.C.E.

While some secular scholars believe that the biblical narratives about David are “a fictionalized account” of historical events “put together . . . to encourage the politically demoralized exiles in Babylon or the recently returned people of Judah,” theologian Mark A. Throntveit reports that “Most scholars reject this ‘minimalist’ view.”[311]

On the one hand, as Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen comments:

There is not one scintilla of hard, verifiable, independent evidence that the accounts of David and Solomon’s reigns were invented in either the Neo-Babylonian or Achaemenid periods. This view is purely hypothetical . . .^[312]

On the other hand, archaeologists investigating several 10th century B.C. sites in Israel have argued for an accumulation of evidence pointing to the existence of a Davidic state. For example, archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered the remains of a large structure in Jerusalem that may have been a palace built for and/or used by King David.[313] A 2024 peer reviewed study of 103 carbon samples taken from several locations in ancient Jerusalem produced “evidence indicating the widespread habitation of Jerusalem during the time of David and Solomon . . . . Thanks to this study, we can say with much greater confidence that Jerusalem at the time of David and Solomon was more a city than a village, as the minimalists claim.”[314]

Jimmy Hardin, associate professor in the MSU Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, comments of the discovery of Davidic era “Bullae” seal impressions that indicate the existence of “a political entity that is typified by elite activities, suggesting that a state was already being formed in the 10th century BC . . . . as recorded in the Hebrew biblical texts.”[315]

Discoveries from Tel ‘Eton, on the southeastern edge of ancient Israel’s territory, fit the biblical description of an expanding kingdom during the reign of King David. Archaeologists Avraham Faust and Yair Sapir report that carbon dating from Tel ‘Eton:

suggest that the site was transformed around the first half of the 10th century BCE . . . A new edifice, probably serving as a residence of the family of a high ranking official . . . was built on the top of the mound, using impressive building technology . . . The construction of the building coincided with the expansion of the mound (and probably also with the erection of the city wall), signifying a major change of the entire site. Both historical circumstances and the plan of the building - a classical four-room house - connect the changes with the highland polity, most likely the contested United Monarchy.^[316]

Archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel, Saar Ganor and Michael G. Hasel conclude their 2018 book In The Footsteps Of King David: Revelations from A Biblical City with the following comments:

Historical processes and cultural phenomena referred to in the Bible relating to the 10^th century BCE . . . find concrete expression at Khirbet Qeiyafa at the same time period. Such clear examples of correspondence between archaeological finds and the biblical tradition stand in contrast to the theories of scholars advocating the minimalist approach, and their assertion that the Bible was written during the Hellenistic or Persian period, or at the end of the 7^th century BCE, and contains no historical memory, but who have no data or finds to support such views . . . . The Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations have provided archaeological evidence corroborating historical memories from the time of King David . . . . The excavations showed that at the end of the 11^th century BCE an urban society and central monarchy began to take shape . . . . The proposal that the Bible was written many hundreds of years after the events is describes, and that it reflects only the period in which it was written, is no longer sustainable.^[317]

Professor Garfinkel argues that similarities in the design, construction and material presence of several fortified 10th-century B.C.E Judahite sites demonstrates the presence of a centralized government:

During the early Iron Age iia, the kingdom of Judah encompassed at least three cities: Khirbet Qeiyafa, Beth Shemesh and Tell en-Naṣbeh. They featured the same underlying urban plan comprised of an outer casemate city wall and a belt of houses abutting the casemates, on the one side, and facing a peripheral road, on the other. Furthermore, none was more than a day’s walk from Jerusalem and, thus, may be considered as marking the kingdom’s geographical core. They were ... positioned to guard strategic roads leading into the kingdom: Khirbet Qeiyafa controlled the Elah Valley, Beth Shemesh controlled the Soreq Valley, and Tell en-Naṣbeh controlled the northern road to Jerusalem.[318]

According to Dr. Tali Erickson-Gini, former Israel Antiquities Authority archaeology inspector for the Southern Negev, this centralized government exerted its territorial control in the 10th century B.C.E via a large network of fortifications and associated water cisterns. Dr. Erickson-Gini notes the existence of over 60 fortification sites:

there’s probably even more fortifications that have not been investigated. I know for a fact that there have been areas that have not been properly surveyed yet . . . . There are smaller sites, that are towers, that are dotting along roads going between the bigger sites . . .[319]

She observes that: “You can see how these forts, [are] lining roads, they’re lining along wadis that are used as roads, and they’re blocking wadis. So, there was a great amount of control exerted through this area.”[320]

The narratives show realism, including flaws, consistent with historical sources.
They draw on early materials and near-contemporary records.
Archaeology and extra-biblical texts broadly support their historical setting.

There are several reasons why many scholars take the biblical narratives about Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon seriously as history, even if not every detail can be independently verified.

First, the narratives pass what historians call the “criterion of embarrassment.” Key figures, especially David, are portrayed with significant moral failures, including abuse of power and personal sin. As Scott Hahn notes, these accounts present leaders “warts and all,” which is unusual for fictional propaganda and suggests reliance on earlier, less idealized traditions.

Second, there are strong reasons to believe that these texts are based on relatively early sources. Joyce G. Baldwin describes Samuel as a compilation of earlier records, including narratives about Samuel, the ark, and the rise of monarchy. Similarly, V. Philips Long argues that much of the material likely originated close to the events themselves, possibly during Solomon’s reign in the 10th century B.C.E.

Internal features support this early dating. The texts reflect conditions specific to the 11th–10th centuries B.C.E., such as Philistine control over metalworking, accurate geographic details, and the absence of later dominant empires like Assyria and Babylon. Linguistically, they also lack strong Aramaic influence typical of later periods.

Third, the books of Kings explicitly cite earlier written sources, such as “the book of the acts of Solomon” and the “chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah.” These likely refer to royal annals or administrative records preserved in state archives, as noted by Scott Hahn.

Archaeology also provides supporting context. Inscriptions like the “Ishbaal” name found at Khirbet Qeiyafa align with names known from the biblical period. While interpretations of some finds remain debated, they demonstrate cultural and linguistic consistency with the biblical setting.

Finally, geographical and historical details match what is known from archaeology. As Yosef Garfinkel and others argue, the placement of Philistine cities in biblical narratives reflects earlier realities rather than later conditions, suggesting access to authentic historical memory.

Taken together, the combination of realistic portrayal, early source material, internal consistency, and external corroboration provides a strong case that these narratives preserve genuine historical traditions about Israel’s early monarchy.

The biblical narratives about Samuel, Saul, David and his son Solomon pass the historical criterion of embarrassment, are based on contemporaneous sources, and are corroborated by extra-biblical evidence.

The Qur’anic material about king David draws upon a partial knowledge of the Biblical narrative about him, which is found principally in the biblical histories of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. In particular, as Professor Khaleel Mohammed argues, “Q38:21-5 . . . . seems to presuppose a familiarity with the biblical narrative”[321] about David’s adultery with Bathsheba. According to Professor Mohammed: “The Qur’an . . . takes the David story and makes it meaningful for its listeners in a new setting, conditioned by the accretions over the ages . . . .”[322] He concludes that these “accretions” were part of an oral tradition, wherein the story of 2 Samuel 12 was “refracted by midrash.”[323]

While some scholars believe that the biblical narratives about the Davidic dynasty are “a fictionalized account” of events “put together . . . to encourage the politically demoralized exiles in Babylon or the recently returned people of Judah,” theologian Mark A. Throntveit reports that “Most scholars reject this ‘minimalist’ view.”[324]

The biblical accounts of Samuel, Saul, David and Solomon “not only are wonderfully told but also have a ring of truth about them.”[325] For example, “The David that emerges from a careful reading of the biblical texts is a complex, very human character.”[326] Indeed, despite being “a man after my own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14), David is presented as a deeply flawed man – an unlikely product of fictional myth-making.[327] In other words, the biblical portrait of King David passes the historical “criteria of embarrassment.” Indeed, theologian Scott Hann points out that: “the Books of Samuel do little to idealize the personalities of Samuel and David but relate their sins and shortcomings with a warts-and-all honesty that inspires confidence in the objectivity and antiquity of their sources.”[328]

Theologian Joyce G. Baldwin describes the book of (1 & 2) Samuel as:

A compilation of earlier accounts, which may have included a life of Samuel, a history of the ark, and accounts of the inauguration of the monarchy, as well as annals of the reign . . . put together by an editor, probably during the exile.[329]

Old Testament scholar V. Philips Long argues there are “good reasons to assume that the bulk of the book was composed early, perhaps during the reign of David’s son Solomon in the tenth century.”[330] He observes that:

the book of Samuel makes no reference to the major powers, Assyria and Babylonia, that begin to dominate in the ninth century . . . Samuel’s description of kingship in 1 Samuel 8 is appropriate to its setting but not to later periods when monarchy was more developed . . . geographic details and war strategies are accurately described . . . “one cannot find in the book any significant influence of the Aramaic language that later became an international means of correspondence” . . . the Philistine monopoly on “metal weaponry and agricultural tools” mentioned in 1 Samuel 13: 19– 23 existed only in the eleventh century [B.C.] . . . references in 1 Samuel 27 to settlements in the Negev wealthy enough to yield spoils of war make little sense after the tenth century, as they were destroyed during Shishak’s campaign in 926 [B.C.] . . .[331]

Long quotes Professor Moshe Garsiel, who concludes that:

In the light of the above literary, historical and archaeological considerations, it seems to me that there is no possibility other than to attribute most of the significant composition of the book of Samuel to the tenth century BCE, though small changes took place much later.[332]

This means that “large parts of our information on the United Monarchy stem from roughly contemporary sources.”[333]

The narrative history of (1 & 2) Kings explicitly references earlier historical texts (currently lost to us) which it drew upon (e.g. 1 Kings 11:41 & 14:19). As theologian Scott Hann comments:

the anonymous compiler of Kings . . . consulted several ancient sources to produce a narrative of the Israelite monarchy extending from the reign of Solomon in the tenth century B.C. up to the Babylonian Exile in the sixth century B.C. Three sources are identified by name in the work: "the book of the acts of Solomon" (1 Kings 11: 41), "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel" (1 Kings 14: 19; 2 Kings 1: 18, etc.), and "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah" (1 Kings 14: 29; 2 Kings 8: 23, etc.). It is likely that these documents were royal administrative annals written close in time to the events they record and preserved in state archives. Other possible sources utilized in Kings include a “Succession Narrative” that details the transition from David's kingship to Solomon's rule (underlying 2 Sam 9- 20 and 1 Kings 1- 2) as well as stories about influential prophets who intervened in the affairs of Israel and Judah (e.g., the Elijah and Elisha cycles in 1 Kings 17— 2 Kings 13).

Hence, the relevant question from the purely historical point of view, is not so much when these narratives or narrative units were first “published” (or even when the canonical form of the text was edited), but whether the canonical text relays information that puts its readers in touch with the life and times of Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, etc. The available evidence seems to confirm the historicity of the narratives with respect to the claims it makes that can be independently verified, and this should bolster our confidence in the general reliability of these accounts.

In their Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary on 1 & 2 Kings, John M. Monson and Iain Provan refer to “the good number of extrabiblical texts and archaeological finds that corroborate the biblical record.”[334] For example, a late 11th/early 10th century B.C.E inscription on a storage jar, discovered in the archaeological excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa:

bears the words “Ishbaal, son of Beda.” Saul himself had a son by this name (1 Chronicles 8:33). This inscription therefore confirms the use of the name for figures belonging to the same period. Moving into later periods in Israel’s history, however, names like this that include the term “Baal” fall out of use.[335]

Professor of Old Testament Dr Claude Mariottini comments that: “Since the inscription is dated to the 11th-10th centuries B.C., the discovery becomes an important addition to the many discoveries that help confirm the chronology of the biblical text.”[336]

Professor Emile Puech of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française, thinks that another Ostracon inscription discovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa: “Represents the earliest known text relating to the establishment of some form of administration of the Israelite society, likely referring to the installation of the first king, Saul.”[337] However, this interpretation of the inscription is controversial, because “the five line text of the ostracon, written in ink on a potsherd, is badly abraded and cannot be deciphered with certainty.”[338]

Fig. The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bible-Lands-Museum-Khirbet-Qeiyafa-30244.jpg).

Archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel and co-authors highlight “the basic and fascinating correspondence between the location of the important Philistine centers that emerges from archaeological-historical research and the geographical location of the biblical traditions.”[339] For example, the biblical story of David and Goliath relates how the Philistine army camped near the city of Socoh before retreating to the cities of Gath and Ekron:

If the story was written at the end of the 7^th century BCE, during the Persian or Hellenistic period, when these cities no longer existed, its author would probably have noted Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Gaza as the cities from which the Philistine forces originated. It is thus clear that the biblical author had access to historical information originating in the 10^th and 8^th centuries BCE.[340]

Having compared the biblical material about Samuel, Saul and David to extra-biblical data about culture in the eleventh to tenth centuries BCE, Professor Daniel Bodi concludes that these narratives: “seem to reflect authentic historical reminiscence of a stage when ancient Israelite seminomadic chieftains were slowly becoming sedentary, adopting urban mores and lifestyles.”[341]