Hello, I'm Gary Stevens, and welcome to the History in the Bible podcast.

All the history, in all the books, in all the Bibles. Episode 1.41, David and Solomon, modern debates.

In the last episode of the history in the Bible, I said that modern archaeology had cast doubt on the biblical account of David and Solomon.

This is a raging debate, the great central controversy of biblical archaeology today.

Let's start with some questions about David that the biblical account itself raises.

David starts his independent career as an outlaw in the Badlands, a rebel from his master, King Saul.

David is closely associated with the Hebrew's southern coastal neighbors,

the Philistines, sworn enemies of the Hebrews since the conquest of Canaan.

He becomes a mercenary in their pay, albeit one who never attacks his own countrymen.

After Saul's death, he spends years in a civil war convincing the northern tribes to accept him

as king, a war concluded only by the

death of his northern rival, Ishboshet. In that war, he leads his own Philistine and

Aegean mercenaries, the Kerrothites and Pelothites. You could easily interpret the biblical

account like this.

David was a southern Judean warlord, a defector, from the northern Israelite strongman Saul.

Backed up by mercenaries, he did not succeed Saul, but annexed Saul's territory after a short war following Saul's death.

If you look a little deeper into the account in kings, David is little more sophisticated

a ruler than Saul was. David makes no treaties and conducts no trade. David's administration

consists almost entirely of the army.

In the Bible, David is often described in Hebrew as Saul is,

as a negid, prince or leader, not a melek, a king.

He is said to have suppressed the native Canaanite inhabitants of Jerusalem, but many of the

...