In the Footsteps of King David

Khirbet Qeiyafa stone ark (Photo: Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

King David is the most fully documented character in the Torah. His narrative is epic, filled with the kind of detail—heroic and unsavory—that makes David such a compelling character. We identify with his yearning for a relationship with G-d, his courage in battle, we see aspects of ourselves in his tragic weakness as a man, a husband and father. David is, above all, profoundly human.

As a screenwriter, I consider the David story the greatest narrative never properly filmed. Saul’s daughter, and David’s (sometime) wife Michal is worthy of her own movie.

The bible critics who label themselves minimalists have made it their mission to attack the story of King David as a fabrication. They claim that no such man ever lived. The biblical narrative, they further assert, is probably based on some minor tribal chieftan who, for religious and nationalist motives, has been elevated to kinghood.

Of course, the 1933 Tel Dan “House of David” inscription provided archeological proof of David’s rule and the ongoing excavations in the City of David in Jerusalem provides further evidence, but the minimilists—true believers—dismiss the discoveries and continue their jihad of denial.

Now, another exciting archeological discovery in Israel provides even more physical evidence of David’s kingdom.

Prof. Yosef Garfinkel, the Yigal Yadin Professor of Archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, announced the discovery of objects that for the first time shed light on how a cult was organized in Judah at the time of King David. During recent archaeological excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, a fortified city in Judah adjacent to the Valley of Elah, Garfinkel and colleagues uncovered rich assemblages of pottery, stone and metal tools, and many art and cult objects. These include three large rooms that served as cultic shrines, which in their architecture and finds correspond to the biblical description of a cult at the time of King David.

Snip!

The absence of cultic images of humans or animals in the three shrines provides evidence that the inhabitants of the place practiced a different cult than that of the Canaanites or the Philistines, observing a ban on graven images.

This discovery is extraordinary as it is the first time that shrines from the time of early biblical kings were uncovered. Because these shrines pre-date the construction of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem by 30 to 40 years, they provide the first physical evidence of a cult in the time of King David, with significant implications for the fields of archaeology, history, biblical and religion studies.

Full story at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

This entry was posted in Jerusalem, King David and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comment Rules


Seraphic Secret is private property, that's right, it's an extension of our home, and as such, Karen and I have instituted two Seraphic Rules and we ask commentors to act respectfully.

  1. No profanity.
  2. No Israel bashing. We debate, we discuss, we are respectful. You know what Israel bashing is. The world is full of it. Seraphic Secret is one of the few places in the world that will not tolerate this form of anti-Semitism.

That's it. Break either of these rules and you will be banned.


20 Comments

  1. Miranda Rose Smith
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    Does anyone besides me remember the 1976 made for TV movie THE STORY OF DAVID? Timothey Bottoms as the young David, Keith Mitchell as the mature David, Anthony Quayle as King Saul?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted May 10, 2012 at 7:27 am | Permalink

      Unfortunately, yes.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Miranda Rose Smith
        Posted May 10, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

        You didn’t think all three of those performances were fine?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Miranda Rose Smith
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    King David is the most fully documented character in the Torah.

    He’s not in the Torah. He’s in the Writings, 1st and 2nd Samuel.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted May 10, 2012 at 7:26 am | Permalink

      When Jews speak of Torah they are usually referring to the entire corpus of written and oral Torah. As in: “I learned this Torah from my Rebbe.”

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Barry
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    Clarification re David and Arthur:

    Both  come out of obscuirty, David and Goliath, Arthur and Excalibur, to lead with enlightenment and effectiveness, and of course, famously, they have family problems. Today, they are historic figures treated as legend.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. DrCarol
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    The first time he was in Israel, my father picked up five stones from the brook near where David met Goliath. 
    I am still jealous of that souvenir. 

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Bill Brandt
      Posted May 9, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

      Dr Carol – It’s not the stones per se but how you throw them ;-)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • DrCarol
        Posted May 10, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

        Now if it were me, engineer that I am…a trebuchet seems the best delivery mechanism.
        We’d probably need bigger stones though.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Miranda Rose Smith
      Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:05 am | Permalink

      Does anyone besides me remember reading that Goliath’s giantism may have been linked to acromegaly, and consequently to poor eyesight? That the reason David could kill him with a slingshot was that Goliath had to get close to David in order to see him?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • Bill Brandt
        Posted May 10, 2012 at 5:45 am | Permalink

        I wanted to mention his speculated medical conditions here but in Googling the speculation seems to be all over the map.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. David Foster
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    “As a screenwriter, I consider the David story the greatest narrative never properly filmed.”

    You’re going to fix that situation someday, right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  6. Bill Brandt
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    I think the people who wish to denigrate (as opposed to simply disbelieve) David are at war with G*d. The little I know about – from what I know – tells me how things people consider irrelevant are the opposite with G*d –
     
    Here is a poor shepard boy, who grows up and has the same trials – failings – as everyone else and yet G*d found favor in him. 
     
    Some time ago I had an interesting talk with my friend Larry over David, Bathsheba, and Uriah.
     
    Larry went into a lot of detail as to why David’s sending Uriah into battle – and certain death was wrong – and I found his perspective – based on the Jewish law – fascinating.
     
    He went int a lot more detail than the traditional Christian perspective. (You see a woman you want. Problem – she’s married – but you are the king. You can send the husband into a battle and he will die – then you can have the woman”
     
    I’ll have to ask him again.
     
    But these times – with archeological discoveries – they are fascinating times, aren’t they Robert? 
     
     

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. exdemexlib
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    As a screenwriter, I consider the David story the greatest narrative never properly filmed.

    The only one I’ve seen, wasn’t too traditional, but , for hollywood, wasn’t that terrible either:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089420/
    (Alice Krige does a good job as Queen,
    although I’m probably a biased fan, having watched her from Lucy Darnay in A Tale of Two Cities, through to Lady Russel in Persuasion, 
    but I think, to any Science Fiction fan, she will always be remembered as The Borg Queen)

    There is a new miniseries (which I haven’t seen yet) that looks promising:
    http://wejew.com/media/11816/King_David_Movie_HD_Complete_Part_1_of_6/

    It’s put out by Jewish sources who seem genuinely interested, but I don’t know what kind of  film /secreenwriting/production/etc. experience they have …

    Has anyone seen it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

      Exdem:

      The “David” miniseries is from 1997 and though the screenwriter is a friend and I’ve worked with the director this project is pretty bad. You can usually count on international productions produced and shot in Italy to be inferior.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Miranda Rose Smith
      Posted May 10, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

      The two performances I remember from that production of A TALE OF TWO CITIES are Peter Cushing as Dr. Manette and Billie Whitelaw as Madame DeFarge.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Franny
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Yes, David’s story has yet to be told properly in film, but think of the magnificent works of art (paintings and sculpture) that he has inspired! It would be great to see a film that would do him justice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Bill Brandt
      Posted May 9, 2012 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

      I think of a humid awfully hot summer in Florence – tourists shoulder to shoulder, at the Museum ;-)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  9. Barry
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    Now I believe in King David in the same way I believe in King Arthur. Both were significant historic figures but whose archeological waters have been muddied by time and legend. Doesn’t matter. The minimalists as you call them are always keen on damaging, or destroying, the heroes of our past. Why though? I suppose some form of self-hatred, but that is too glib and shallow an explanation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting