Changes

There has been a scholarly debate in recent years about whether David was a real person or, rather, a construct of later generations to justify the ascendancy of Jerusalem as being "David's city", and justify the line of David, David's dynasty with all the policitical implications. Many felt that references to the person of David and the dynasty of David ("House of David") as found in the Bible are "read backs" rather than historically correct statements. The situation that this was to justify was the hopes and longing for the long lost homeland which which began to be expressed with the Babylonian captivity of the Jews after 586 A.D. But that has changed with the finding of the Tel Dan Inscription.

There has been a scholarly debate in recent years about whether David was a real person or, rather, a construct of later generations to justify the ascendancy of Jerusalem as being "David's city", and justify the line of David, David's dynasty with all the policitical implications. Many felt that references to the person of David and the dynasty of David ("House of David") as found in the Bible are "read backs" rather than historically correct statements. The situation that this was to justify was the hopes and longing for the long lost homeland which which began to be expressed with the Babylonian captivity of the Jews after 586 A.D. But that has changed with the finding of the Tel Dan Inscription.

n 1993 and 1995 archaeological excavations at Tel Dan, in northern Israel, at not far from the beginning rise of the Mt.Hermon and the tributaries leading to the Jordan river, pieces of potsherd were found bearing an Aramaic inscription commemorating the fall of the city at the hands of the Aramaeans, the king most probably being Hazael. A heated arguement had been in the forefront for years with many scholars believing the references in the Bible to "House of David" were anachronistic emenating from later times, particulary after 586 B.C. and read back into early biblical accounts. The arguement is now swinging in favor of the Biblical data, largely due to the "Tel Dan inscription", which has been dated by archaeological and epigraphic (script) analysis to the years 870-750 B.C. The inscription follows with the word referring to the "House of David" (the dynasty of David) in both English and Hebrew (pertinent part). Hazael, king of Aram, claims to have killed Yehoram son of Ah'av, king of Israel, and Ahazyahu, the son of Yehoram, king of the "House of David":  

In 1993 and 1995 archaeological excavations at Tel Dan, in northern Israel, at not far from the beginning rise of the Mt.Hermon and the tributaries leading to the Jordan river, pieces of potsherd were found bearing an Aramaic inscription commemorating the fall of the city at the hands of the Aramaeans, the king most probably being Hazael. A heated arguement had been in the forefront for years with many scholars believing the references in the Bible to "House of David" were anachronistic emenating from later times, particulary after 586 B.C. and read back into early biblical accounts. The arguement is now swinging in favor of the Biblical data, largely due to the "Tel Dan inscription", which has been dated by archaeological and epigraphic (script) analysis to the years 870-750 B.C. The inscription follows with the word referring to the "House of David" (the dynasty of David) in both English and Hebrew (pertinent part). Hazael, king of Aram, claims to have killed Yehoram son of Ah'av, king of Israel, and Ahazyahu, the son of Yehoram, king of the "House of David":