Having studied the two inscriptions from the site, we now visit the ruins (Khirbet) of Qeiyafa, on the Sha`arayim road (1 Samuel 17:52, cp. Sha`arayim in Joshua 15:36), with reference to Douglas Petrovich's very good article on its connection with the United Monarchy, and the archaeological evidence that identifies King Saul rather tan King David as the builder of this fort. The importance of this place is its position in the Elah Valley, where David slew Goliath. The meaning of the name Qeiyafa is not clear, but one suggestion is that it is connected with KYP' (Aramaic) "stone, rock" , as in the name Kepha(s), Petros, Peter ('rock"); Qeiyafa is built on a high rock, and another toponym suggested for it is Gob, which has a hint of height in it (Hbr GBH "lofty", and GB` "hill", the name of King Saul's town); Gob is known only as a place where David and his men fought Philistian giants, including a Goliath (2 Sam 21:18-22).
The name Sha`arayim could only apply to Qeiyafa when its two gates were functioning, and this is recognized to be a very short period between its creation and its destruction (which would probably be at the time of the disastrous Battle of Gilboa, when the Philistian hordes wreaked havoc in Israel). The name applied to the site earlier (or later) could well have been Gob; so this is a case of "both-and". But Petrovich has noted that the list of towns "in the lowland" including Sha`arayim (Joshua 15:33-36) gives a total of 14, but there are 15 names. One explanation could be that Sha`arayim was added later (in the time of Samuel, perhaps, or after the census of King David); in this case its older name could still be there; it is preceded by Socoh and Azekah, which are both identified archaeologically, and they appear in the Elah Valley narrative (1 Sam 17:1), with the Philistians camped between them, and thus opposite Qeiyafa. The toponyms listed after Sha`arayim are Adithayim, Gederah, Gederothayim. Of these, Adithayim might be an alternative name for Sha`arayim.
A complication unknown to me until I saw Petrovich's footnote 44 (where C. C. McKinny's dissertation is cited) is that Sha`arayim could be identified as nearby Tell esh-Shari`ah. Garfinkel should have looked into this site, too! The place that I know by this Arabic name is much further south, and has been identified (Garsiel and Garsiel) as David's Ziklag (S.iqlag); we all know these days what shari`ah means, and David laid down a law about booty there (1 Sam 30:24-25); David is a h.alif in Islamic tradition, hence the name of the nearby Tell H.alif. Garfinkel wants Tell er-Ra`i (the name refers to shepherds) to be Ziklag, but it is too close to Gath, critics say. Never mind, its importance is the discovery there of three potsherds bearing the name Yerubba`al, alias Gid`on, a famous Judge of Israel. If you would like to see how the three pieces fit together, to produce la-ya-ru-bba-`a-la (with the ba syllabogram containing a doubling dot, a sort of Daghesh Forte, a subject that Douglas and I have looked at together):
https://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2021/09/khirbet-ar-rai-inscription-lyrbl.html
This northern Tell esh-Shari`ah is troublesome. It is not on any of the maps I have (notably Rainey's Sacred Bridge, but it is listed in Student Map Manual as 752 Khirbet esh-Shari`ah, tentatively identified as Shaaraim). Petrovich has it "in close proximity" to Khirbet Qeiyafa, after having said that no other option was available in proximity. Perhaps it could be accepted as a village associated with Sha`arayim("fourteen cities with their villages"(Jos 15:36); Qeiyafa does not seem to have any dwellings among Garfinkel's excavated "houses"; it was a military base and would have lodged the men in tents, within and beyond the walls; it was also a centre for collection and storage of produce; and it was, I ween, the religious centre for King Saul's kingdom, after the priests of Nob had been slaughtered, and Saul had broken with Samuel and Yahweh.
The big surprise for me in Petrovich's article (97-98) is Ada Yardeni's suggested reading of the restored pot-inscription from C11 as "Ishba`al ben BD`[ShTRT]", meaning "son of 'Servant of Astarte'", referring to King Saul and his devotion to the goddess. I had already thought that King Saul had adopted this form of apostasy, given that worship of Baal and `Ashtart (Ashtoreth) was endemic in that period (Judges 2:13; 1 Sam 7:4, 12:10), and the armour of Saul was placed in a temple of `Ashtart (1 S 31:10); the shrine C10 at Qeiyafa was probably for a goddess, I would think; and Baal is represented by standing pillars, in buildings C3 and D1, and in a chamber of the South Gate. Ishbaal had a Yahweh name originally, YShYW (Yeshyahu? "YHWH is") (1 S 14:49). Garfinkel has stated that the name of the king who built Qeiyafa would have to be mentioned in an inscription to confirm this. Well, I can see that three kings are named on the ostracon and the jar: Dawid (with GLYT, Yahu, and Elohim) in the prophetic oracle on the ostracon, and Ishbaal, and Saul as "Servant of `Ashtart", on the jar. Saul was the reigning King, Prince Ishbaal was the governor of Shaaraim (resident in the central palace, not in building C11, where his jar was found), and David was the anointed "servant of Elohim" (Ostracon lines 1 and 2), who was destined to be King of Israel (line 4).
The either-or mistake in this situation is based on Garfinkel's insistence that this fortress belongs to David as King of Judah in the Iron IIa period, and he attempts to exclude Iron Ib from the picture, and he barely mentions Saul in his manifold discussions of the evidence. Iron Ib is clearly represented at the site, as is IIa; I suggest the latter evidence shows that King Saul was importing foreign luxury goods late in his reign, along with the "foreign gods" (1 S 7:3) including Ashtart of Sidon (1 Kings 11:5, Solomon's apostasy). Doug has cleared up this matter for us.
In view of the evidence on the Qeiyafa Ostracon concerning Dawid and Guliyut (Goliyot), it will now be difficult to classify the universally known story of David and Goliath in the category of "tall tales", as Garfinkel and his colleagues have done (Footsteps of King David, 2018, 21, 34). Goliath was not a fiction. With regard to the record of "Goliath the Gittite" being slain by Elhanan of Bethlehem, rather than by David of Bethlehem, another attempt to resolve this quandary will be made here.
David and Goliath, and El-Hanan of Bethlehem
It would appear that we now have at least six ancient accounts of the slaying of Goliath:
(1) I Samuel 17 (MT: Massoretic Hebrew text)
(2) 1 Samuel 17 (LXX: Septuagint Greek text, with many variants from MT.
On the differences between the MT and LXX versions of the story:
Emanuel Tov, “The David and Goliath Saga: How a Biblical editor combined two versions”, first published in Bible Review 2:04, Winter 1986.
https://remnantofgiants.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/tov-david-and-goliath.pdf
Alexander Rofé, "David overcomes Goliath", Hen 37 (2015) 66-69
This is a revised and updated version of “the Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore, theology, eschatology,” in J. Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 117-151
https://www.academia.edu/29815234/David_Overcomes_Goliath_pdf
(3) 1 Samuel 19:4-6
When Saul decided to put David to death, his son Jonathan reminded him of the good things that David had done for the King: Risking his own life, "he smote the Philistian (Pelishti)" and through him "Yahweh performed a great salvation-victory for all Israel".
(4) 1 Samuel 21:9 -10
Ahimelek the priest at Nob said to David:"The sword of Golyat the Philistine, whom you struck down in the Elah Valley is here..."
(5) 2 Samuel 21:18-22 (Elhanan at Gob)
21:19: "Again there was a battle with Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Ya`arey-orgim the Beth-lehemite slew Golyat the Gittite, the staff (`éç) of whose spear was like a weaver's beam (menor 'orgim)."
The "orgim" of the father's name is apparently a scribal error, a repeated word that has crept up from the end of the sentence. This is an indication that a corrupt text has been bequeathed to us.
21:22: "These four were born into the giant-community (raphah) in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants." This could mean that Elhanan of Bethlehem, the slayer of Goliath, was indeed David, under an honorific name (which bespeaks the grace of God). Incidentally, the name Elhanan also appears in 23:24, as "son of DWDW (Dodo?), of Bethlehem"; he was one of "the thirty" (23:23), together with Uriah the Hittite (23:39), who is last on the list, with the total given as "thirty-seven", but Uriah lost his life and his wife in serving David as a soldier (2 Sam 11); and a high-ranking warrior of David was named El`azar ben DDY (23:9).
Notice 't ('eth) before the name Glyt in 21:22; this would presumably exclude the possibility of "a Goliath of Gath", that is, a member of the Goliath family; nevertheless, the Chronicler (1 Chron 20:5) has Elhanan son of Jair slaying "Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite". While acknowledging that the Chronicler could have altered the text to produce a more congenial statement, S. R. Driver (Notes, 354-355) decides that the Chronicler has the "more probable" and "credible" reading; and there the 'eth precedes the name Lahmi.
Note that the term Rapha (apparently a collective noun for the Repha'im giants), not `Anaq (as in the Qeiyafa Ostracon), is applied to the four giants of Gath in 2 Samuel 21:22.
Another approach to the problem is to allow that there were two different giants named Goliath in Gath. As an analogy, David had several men named Yehonatan (Jonathan) in his life: besides his best friend Jonathan the son of Saul, he had an uncle, a nephew, a priest, and more. Of course, there is only one David in the Bible.
(6) The Qeiyafa Ostracon
This is a primary source in every sense, anterior and superior to the secondary sources. This is the touchstone for evaluating the other sources and the speculations surrounding them. It is an eyewitness account from a prophet, a response delivered in the form of an oracle of Yahu Elohim, and recorded in writing, presumably straight after the event, when the prophet was inspired. (Incidentally, no separation of Yahwist and Elohist can be made here, though it might be possible in 1 Samuel 16-18.) It is not a forgery, but a genuine testimony that has been waiting 3000 years to be discovered and deciphered.
The Reign of King Saul
It must have been Saul who built the double-gated fortress at Sha`arayim (Khirbet Qeiyafa). The headlines we have been seeing about this inscription are wrong. This is not about the kingdom of David, and the tribe of Judah, but about the reign of King Saul of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled over "all Israel" (1 Sam 12:1). However, when it came to raising an army, "the men of Judah" could be distinguished from "the sons of Israel" (1 Sam 11:8), though "the men of Judah and Israel" could be classified together as "sons of Israel" (17:52-53) in the context of David's victory over Goliath, and the mention of Sha`arayim (52); and three brothers of David, from Bethlehem of Judah, were in Saul's army and numbered with "all the men of Israel" (17:19), in the Elah Valley (17:12-20).
Saul was the king of Israel who mustered the army against the Philistines (1 Sam 13:2-3; 14:52), and he eventually appointed David as an officer (18:5). Possibly Saul was in his fortress (Sha`arayim) when he summoned David into his presence, as there is no mention of a tent (17:31-40), though the account says (17:2) that “Saul and the men of Israel were gathered and encamped in the Valley of the Terebinth (Elah)”. Incidentally, if a military garrison was stationed here constantly, then the soldiers may have lived in tents, rather than in the buildings attached to the casemate walls.
The length of Saul’s reign is not reliably recorded (it is given as “2 years” in 1 Samuel 13:1), but he must have had at least twenty (or “[twenty and] two”) years on the throne of Israel, before 1000 BCE. What we have here is a typical statement of a king's age at accession and the length of his reign; but the vital numbers are missing: "Saul was [..] years old when he began to reign, and he reigned [..] two years over Israel". It matches the format of the one for his successor, Eshbaal (2 Sam 2:10): Ish-bosheth son of Sha'ul "was forty years old when he began to reign over Yisra'el, and he reigned two years". That is the translation in The Holy Scriptures (The Jerusalem Bible, Koren Publishers, Jerusalem, 1988), which provides the Hebrew text alongside the English. It tries to make sense of the Saul summary (1 Sam 13:1) thus: "Sha'ul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Yisra'el, Sha'ul chose him three thousand men ..." (running the sentence into verse 2). This is an improbable solution, but this chapter (1 Sam 13) does imply that Saul's first act as ruler (in the early years of his reign) was to attack the Philistines' garrison in Geba`, assisted by his son Jonathan. Presumably this son was his firstborn, and if he was a warrior and an officer then he would be perhaps eighteen years old, and his father would be twice that age. The other active son, Eshbaal, was forty when he replaced his father (2 Sm 2:10), and David was thirty when he began his reign of forty years (2 Sm 5:4), after the two-year reign of Eshbaal. We are presented with round numbers in all this, but the 2 (shetey) of Saul's number may be lacking the word for ten, hence 2+10 = 12. But Eshbaal's forty years would have Saul fathering him at age twelve, even if Saul was forty when he ascended to the throne. So we try "2 and 20" (though changes would need to be made to the Hebrew text to achieve this, as pointed out by Driver, Notes, 97) and thereby allow him to enter a seventh decade (accession around age 40 + 22 years reign = 62 years of life, approximately). If Saul built Sha`arayim at the beginning of his reign, and it was destroyed in the Philistian invasion at the time of his downfall, and the archaeological estimate for the duration of Sha`arayim is a generation, then twenty-two years seems apt for the length of his reign. However, we have to say that the chronology of Saul's reign is not available in our extant documents.
One piece of information, regarding the Ark of the Covenant, might assist our calculations, or else confuse the matter even further. When the five Philistian rulers returned the Ark to Israel, after having it in their possession for seven disastrous months (1 Sam 6), it was taken to Kiriath-yearim (Qiriat-ye`arim) and placed in the house of Abinadab; his son Eleazar was appointed as its guardian and sanctified as its priest; and it remained there for twenty years (1 Sam 7:1-2). The idea in 1 Samuel 14:18 that Saul had the Ark of God with him at Gibeah is erroneous: it was a divinatory "ephod" he called for, not the "ark", as the Septuagint shows. The next time the Ark of God appears in the history books of Israel, David is bringing it to Jerusalem, his new capital city (2 Sam 6:1-11), and the later Chronicler confirms (1 Chron 13:6-14) that it was still at Kiriath-yearim in the house of Abinadab, though his son Eleazar is not mentioned, and his sons Uzzah and Ahio were the ones who conveyed it in a new cart. Israel Finkelstein has found evidence on the site, supposedly from the time of Jeroboam II in the eighth century BCE; but the earlier settlement was apparently not so important. However, the Ark was kept in a house on a hill, and while the word bayt can mean "temple" as well as simply "house", we would expect this to be a private family-dwelling with a chapel.Is this double decade of the Ark's sojourn at Kiriath-ye`arim (1 Sm 7:2) where we have to fit the reign of Saul, plus the two years of his son and successor Eshbaal? If Saul was, at the beginning of his reign, really a "youth" (bahur, 1 Sam 9:2), rather than simply a "chosen one", then this mere score of years is a tight term in which to produce a son who is forty years old at his accession, namely Eshbaal (2 Sam 2:10). If these forty years could be understood as equivalent to the length of a genration, we might reduce his age to something like 25 years. Alternatively, we could believe the Qeiyafa jar inscription, and recognize that Eshbaal's true father was someone with the unique name Beda`, and suppose that he was an adopted son of Saul.
Another piece of chronological data may be added here: Saul's son Jonathan had a child named Meribbaal (1 Chron 8:34) or Mephiboshet (1 Sam 4:4), apparently his only son, who was five years of age at the time of his father's death in the Battle of Gilboa.
In Saul’s time, Jerusalem (Yerushalayim, alias J/Yebus, Judges 19;10) was not the capital of Israel, and it was not under his dominion; but when David became the supreme ruler, he chose Jerusalem as his city and conquered it (2 Sam 5:4-10).
Garfinkel and his colleagues (Footsteps of King David, 2018, 95) reason that "it is clear from the radiocarbon determinations that Khirbet Qeiyafa can be dated to the time of David and Saul, but not to Solomon's reign, which is later than the results obtained". They choose to date the site to the reign of King David; but being "scientifically cautious", they concede that this could only be decided conclusively if the name of one of these kings were found at Khirbet Qeiyafa. As I see it, the names of two future kings of this period are indeed found in the two inscriptions that the site has provided: David on the ostracon, and Ishbaal (or Eshbaal) on the jar. However, according to the data supplied in the Books of Samuel, David was not a king at the time of his encounter with Goliath, when Saul was King of Israel (1 Sam 17); and the ostracon seems to be a response to this event, in the form of an oracle from God, presumably delivered by a prophet immediately after the death of Goliath, explaining that he had been judged for cursing "the servant of God", namely David (lines 1-3, cp. 1 Sam 17:43); remember, David was already known to Samuel and the prophets as the anointed successor to Saul (1 Sam 16:1-13), though Saul was unsure of the identity of David, who had performed two roles for him, as his therapeutic musician (16:14-23) and his champion against Goliath (17:55-58). If the Eshbaal named on the jar is the son of Saul who succeeded his father on the throne of Israel, then we can say that he was not a king until after the death of Saul, and he then ruled from Mahanaim in Transjordan (2 Sam 2:8-11). Therefore Shaarayim (Khirbet Qeiyafa) must have belonged to King Saul, and Prince Eshbaal was presumably his governor there. At the risk of redrawing the map of Israel for this period, the question has to be asked whether this hilltop fortress was actually the capital city of King Saul.
Saul had his centre in the citadel of his hometown, namely Gibeah of Benjamin, or Gibeah of Saul, Hebrew Gib`ah, sometimes with the definite article ha- (The Hill), and with its original final -t returning in the construct state (1 Samuel 10:26; 14:2; 14:16; 22:6; 26:1). This was arguably on the prominent mound now known as Tell el-Fûl, situated three miles north of Jerusalem; this identification was proposed by Albright and is accepted by Schniedewind, but denied by Finkelstein, though reinstated by Horton Harris. There is no record of Saul building walls and edifices (apart from the archaeological evidence of hewn stones and casemate walls and houses), as is the case with Solomon (1 Kings 5:13-18, 9:15-25). Nevertheless, when Saul became King of Israel he would have constructed a fortified palace for himself on his family farm, with its donkeys (1 Sm 9:1-3) and oxen (1 Sm 11:4-7); and also strongholds such as Sha`arayim to guard vital thoroughfares in his kingdom. So the main entrance of Sha`arayim (Qeiyafa), the south-east gate, looked to Gibeah rather than Jerusalem. Both Gibe`ah and Sha`arayim, with strong casemate walls, were bastions against Philistian attacks (especially from Gath and Ekron). When the Philistines saw that David had slain their champion, they fled in panic, and “the men of Israel and Judah” pursued them along the way to Gath and Ekron (17:52); Sha`arayim is mentioned, apparently as the starting point of the pursuit (my suggestion is that a syllabogram MI, meaning "from" has been lost in transit, because of its resemblance to SHA in the neo-syllabic script; see further, below). Both of these Israelite strongholds, Gibe`ah and Sha`arayim, were eventually destroyed, and presumably they fell when Saul and his son Jonathan were killed in battle by the Philistines, who then occupied the land (1 Samuel 31:1-7).
Émile Puech (2010) and Israel Finkelstein (2013) correctly connect Khirbet Qeiyafa with King Saul, not King David.
On the other hand, Yosef Garfinkel attributes the Qeiyafa casemate walls to King David and a hypothetical Kingdom of Judah (Footsteps Ch.3, "Khirbet Qeiyafa in the period of King David"). Albright (Archaeology of Palestine, 1960, 120-122) states that this style of fortification (which originated in Asia Minor in the Late Bronze Age) was in vogue in Israel in the eleventh and tenth centuries; he cites the citadel of Saul (Tell el-Fûl) as an example, and if that was built by King Saul, then the Sha`arayim casemate-walled town could also have been part of his fortification system, and it would have been destroyed by the Philistines before David established his kingdom. A similar circular stronghold with casemate walls built on bedrock was discovered at Khirbet ed-Dawwara, NE of Gibeah and Jerusalem; Qeiyafa had an area of 23 dunams, and Dawwara 5 dunams (Garfinkel et al 2018, Footsteps, 169-177); and Dawwara was contemporaneous with Qeiyafa.
Finkelstein had done excavation work at Dawwara, and he saw that it had been abandoned, rather than destroyed. On the subject of casemate walls, Finkelstein (2013, 57) avers that the only casemate walls contemporaneous with Khirbet Qeiyafa are on the plateau north of Jerusalem associated with what he calls the Gibeon/Gibeah polity, and with King Saul. The cities with casemate walls that Garfinkel (2018, 88-91) invokes as Davidian are from the 10th Century BCE (Beth-Shemesh, Tell en-Nasbeh, Tel Beit Mirsim, Beersheba), whereas Sha`arayim (Qeiyafa) was built late in the 11th century. Is it possible that the first two had acquired their casemates during the reign of Saul? Remember that no city-building activities are recorded for Saul and David.
The Qeiyafa ostracon is indeed a Hebrew inscription, with regard to its language, though its handwriting is not the official Old Hebrew script, which came afterwards. However, it may not be the oldest Hebrew inscription we possess, as is often asserted, nor the earliest known Israelian Hebrew inscription. For the present, that distinction possibly belongs to the Izbet Sartah ostracon, which was found at the site of an earlier battle between Israel and Philistia, namely Eben-ezer (1 Samuel 4); or else the ostracon from Beth-Shemesh, where the Ark of the Covenant arrived after its captivity in Philistia (1 Sam 6). These three ostraca are bearers of the ephemeral neo-syllabic script, and we also have an 11th-Century Hebrew name on three pieces of a broken vessel: Yerubba`al, an epithet of Judge Gid`on (Judges 6-8); this appears to be written with the characters of the neo-syllabary. Accordingly, we can say that this new syllabic writing system was employed in the time of the Judges, and Samuel, and Saul.
Please remember, this is "work in progress" and not my last word on the subject. The Qeiyafa sherd is broken at the top (as indicated by some topless letters), and possibly there was more writing preceding the present line 1, which is now irretrievable. Also, the space at the bottom has many dots that could be the remains of letters. which might well be retrievable.
However that may be, this text seems to merit the title "the David and Goliath inscription from Sha`arayim".
Khirbet Qeiyafa as Sha`arayim or `Adithayim or Gob
Khirbet Qeiyafa has tentatively but plausibly been identified as the Sha`arayim of Joshua 15:36 and 1 Samuel 17:52. Sha`arayim means “two gates”, and it needs to be stated at the outset that such a name could only be applied to it at the time when it was a fortress with two gateways in its walls (the southern and western gates). Previously it would have had another name, which would probably have been remembered.
Arguments for and against this equation of Qeiyafa and Sha`arayim are conveniently presented by Yigal Levin, in "The Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa: A New Suggestion", BASOR 367 (2012) 73-86. He raises the possibility that Qeiyafa was called HM`GL ("the round place"), as in 1 Sam 17.20: David was told by his father, in Bethlehem, to take provisions to his brothers at "the camp" (HMH.NH, 1 Sam 17.17); David went to "the circular place" (HM`GL, 17.20); this expression is also used for an encampment of Saul in the wilderness of Ziph (1 Sam 26:5); commentators suggest a ring of waggons. Yigal Levin (p. 82) proposes that this is a reference to Qeiyafa and the circular fortification. Were the tents inside the enclosure, or outside it, or both? Was there a garrison of Saul's soldiers stationed there continually? This seems likely, as a large number of weapons has been found there (Garfinkel et al 2018, Footsteps:110, 202). Which part of the city was the military sector? Area C 1 - 4, with a watchtower, and horses or asses, and space for metalworking (Garfinkel et al 2018, 80-82)? However, HM`GL would not be the actual name of the place. If we are allowed to use this Biblical narrative as a source, the name that pops up is Sha`arayim (in 17:52).
Sha`arayim in Hebrew undoubtedly means "two gates" (the noun has the dual ending, -ayim, not plural -im), and this feature certainly applies to Khirbet Qeiyafa, with its west and south gates. Other Hebrew names in -ayim, such as Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), do not seem to have a "dual number" reference, but Sha`arayim could be an exception (like Misrayim, "the two lands of Egypt"). Another instance of "two gates" occurs in 2 Sam 18:24: "David was seated between the two gates" (BYN ShNY HSh`RYM); this means the area under the tower, between the outer and inner entrances of the single gateway in Jerusalem; this was the place where the King met his people to hear their grievances, and give "justice in the gate".
The Sha`arayim of Joshua 15:36 is the only instance of the name that could definitely be connected with the Sha`arayim of 1 Sam 17:52; it would have been situated in the vicinity of Socoh and Azekah, according to Jos 15.35; and the Philistian camp in the Valley of Elah lay between Socoh (Sin Kap He) and Azekah (`zqh) (1 Sam 17:1); Qeiyafa is likewise between these towns; it is on the northern side of the Elah stream (Nahal Elah), whereas (from east to west) Socoh, Azekah, and Gath are on the southern side.
This name Sha`arayim is rarely mentioned in the Bible, and this might be explained by the fact that Qeiyafa had only a brief existence of one or two decades in the Iron Age, around 1000 BCE; this would be the period of King Saul, who had a reign of possibly 22 years (1 Sam 13:1); another factor might be the illicit worship of foreign gods that was practised there, as the archaeological evidence reveals, and its existence was a blot on the landscape of the holy land that Yahweh had promised and vouchsafed to Israel.
However, a Sha`arayim appears at the end of a list in 1 Chronicles 4.31, in a section on sons of Simeon; and it adds that 'these were their towns until the reign of David'; this could mean that Sha`arayim was destroyed before David came to the throne (so Puech 2010, 183); alternatively, this is taken to mean that it was extant in David's reign (Garfinkel). The word for 'until' is `ad, meaning 'up to', 'as far as'; but it can include its object (here 'the reign of David'). Nevertheless, if this is factual, and even if it extends into David's reign, it excludes David as the builder of Sha`arayim, which would have been existent in the time of King Saul. On the other hand, the statement need not imply that the place became non-existent, but simply ceased to be owned by the tribe of Simeon.
In this regard, it should be kept in mind that the earlier list (Joshua 15:20-63) in which Sha`arayim appears (15:36) is catalogued as "the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Judah" (15:20); and in the section on the inheritance of Simeon (19:1-9) it is pointed out that the children of Simeon (Shim`on) had their inheritance within the inheritance of Judah (Yehudah); for example, Ziklag (S.iqlag) appears in both lists (15:31, 19:5); and yet Ziklag, at the point where it enters the story of Israel, is owned by King Akhish of Gath, and given to his vassal David as a base for his band of warrior-raiders; and it remained in the hands of the Kings of Judah thereafter, "to this day" (1 Sam 27:5-6). Ziklag is plausibly identified as Tell esh-Shari`ah, near Tel H.alif, SE of Gaza (Sacred Bridge, 148 -149; Jerusalem Post, 15 July 2020, Garsiel and Garsiel: the shari`a law of the name would refer to David's rule about sharing booty (1 Sam 30:23-25); but Khirbet ar-Ra`i, where the name of Judge Yrbb`l (Gid`on) has been found on three fragments of a pot, is also offered for identification with Ziklag, though it is near Lakish, and perhaps too close to Gath for David to use as a base for his deceptive guerrilla games.
If Sha`arayim was technically in the territory of Judah, rather than that of Benjamin, nevertheless, as King of Israel, Saul (of the tribe of Benjamin) could legitimately fortify any part of his realm; and the victory of all Israel (including Judah) over Philistia and Goliath shows the unity of the tribes under their ruler, even though David was hero on the day.
It is worth remembering that Samuel's ancestry was in the tribe of Ephraim (1 Sam 1:1-2); since childhood he had been at the central sanctuary in Shiloh, and "all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that he was established as a prophet of Yahweh" (3:19-21); and he anointed two successive kings over the United Kingdom of Israel, namely Saul of Benjamin (10:1), and David of Judah (16;11); his two wayward sons were judges in Beersheba (8:1-2), in the far south of the country. That seems to say that there was a united Israel in the lifetime of Samuel the prophet, priest, and judge; and King Saul would have reigned over this same territory, perhaps even as far north as Dan.
Khirbet Qeiyafa fits neatly into Saul's reign; it was presumably built by him to guard against Philistian incursion, particularly from Gath, seven miles away; and it could have been destroyed during the Philistian conquest of Israel, when King Saul and three of his four sons died in battle (1 Sam 31).
One problem for the identification of Qeiyafa and Sha`arayim is that the list of towns which includes Sha`arayim (Joshua 15.33-36) ends thus: "fourteen cities with their villages" (and this applies to all the groups of places in that chapter; they all have "with their villages"). Qeiyafa does not look like a city that would have associate villages or suburbs, but if we assume that "where applicable" (or "if any") is understood after "with their villages" the difficulty vanishes.
Then there is the question whether this briefly inhabited place would have its name recorded in the Bible; but if it was the site of a momentous event, as described in 1 Sam 17, then it might well rate a mention, and Sha`arayim is the name that occurs there (17:52). However, we can see from an examination of its ruined remains that it became a centre for the worship of idols, and thus an abomination unworthy of celebration.
No matter how small its population and area, this place (now uninhabited but known as Khirbet Qeiyafa) would have had a name; there is ceramic evidence (from the Late Chalcolithic and Middle Bronze Age II) for previous human habitation on this site (Garfinkel, Ganor, Hasel, Foosteps, 65, and Table 3); its appellation in the Bronze Age may have been Gob (reputedly the place where Goliath of Gath was slain, 2 Sam 21:19), and around 1000 BCE Gob received the new name Sha`arayim, because of its two great gates, and this could have been substituted for the older name in the record (Jos 15:36). Incidentally, there are fifteen names, not fourteen as stated, in that "lowland" section (Jos 15:33-36), and it is assumed that there is a doublet at the end of the list: “... Sha`arayim, `Adithayim, Gederah, Gederothayim”. The last two would seem to be the culprits: "Wall" and "Two walls"; but supposing Sha`arayim was the interpolated toponym, then its alternative name could have been Gederothayim ("double wall"), referring to its casemate walls; but this might be the name of some other town with this feature. The town-name immediately following Sha`arayim is `Adithayim, and one suggestion for the meaning of this name is "elevated place" (Martin Noth, Das Buch Josua, Tübingen, 1953, 148, "erhöhter Ort") with the -ayim expressing exaltation rather than duplication; this might have been an earlier name of Sha`arayim. All the listed names are connected with "and" (Hebrew w), but the one linking Sha`arayim and `Adithayim might be explicative, "that is"; this would solve the problem of the fourteen towns in a list of fifteen. In any case, it stands to reason that the "Two Gates" designation would only apply to the walled town with its two entrances; previously the spot would have a different name, relating to its elevation: either Gob or `Adithayim, or both; Gederothayim might be another place with casemate double-walling. Incidentally, Tel Zayit in the Shephelah is seeking its ancient name (and it is not Libnah or Ziklag).
As for the problem of the date of these lists of towns, although they are presented as the inheritances that Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun assigned to the tribes at the time of the settlement in Canaan (Jos 14:1), Israel Finkelstein and others put these toponymic inventories in the seventh century BCE. However, we might bear in mind that perhaps the only time that a combined census of Israel's peoples and places could be taken was during the United Kingdom, specifically in the census of David that is documented (2 Sam 24, 1 Chron 21) (as pointed out by Albright). Of course, we are told that Joshua had lists of cities (Jos 18:6-9), but Joshua 15-19 has probably undergone redaction, presumably starting in the time of King David.
The problematic verse describing the rout and the route of the Philistines in the vicinity of Sha`arayim (1 Sam 17.52) is corrupt (gy' for Gath in the first half, and Gath correctly in the second half); and dubious ("up to gates [sha`arey] of Eqron" and "two gates [sha`arayim, LXX " way of the gates"] ... up to Eqron"; so there could be not one but two instances of Sha`arayim, or none at all, only "gates", both with reference to Eqron); and ambiguous ("the Sha`arayim road" or "the road to Sha`arayim", as viewed from Socoh in the east or Gath in the west?); another possibility is that the Septuagint provides a clue, with its "way of the gates", and the translation should be, "on the Two Gates Road", so called because it had two great gates along its course. However, the recorder obviously wants to say that "the men of Israel and Judah" pursued their Philistine foes all the way home to their cities, namely Gath and Eqron, and as a result there were bodies lying all along the route (or routes) to Gath and Eqron. Sha`arayim, a place in Judah (Joshua 15.36) was not another Philistian destination (as perhaps implied in the New English Bible: "The road that runs to Shaaraim, Gath, and Ekron"); Sha`arayim is more likely to be the starting point of the flight and of the pursuit (Revised Standard Version: "the wounded Philistines fell on the way from Shaaraim as far as Gath and Ekron").
It may be that another emendation is necessary to achieve this solution, by adding M- ("from") to the word Sha`arayim. As a matter of interest, or even of significance, Mi and Sha in the (syllabic) script on the Qeiyafa ostracon are very similar, and both have a vertical stance; so Mi could have been lost through a kind of haplography. (In the standard international script, in Iron Age II, Shin is horizontal, while Mem is vertical.) Consequently, if some of the documents used by later scribes were in this syllabic script, there could have been errors made in transcription through unfamiliarity with the syllabary. This opens a whole new area in the paleographical study of the text of the Hebrew Bible.
Note that the Philistian warriors had come out of their camp and were lined up for battle facing the Israelites (1 Sam 17:21) and therefore facing Khirbet Qeiyafa (that is, Sha`arayim, the place with two gates). The Philistian stampede began there, whether along a road or over open country. (There was a stream flowing through the valley.)
[Anson Rainey (The Sacred Bridge, 155c) saw the Philistine retreat from the Elah valley as running north on the eastern side of Azekah (Tell Zakarîyeh = Tel `Azeqa) to "the road to Sha`arayim", and thence to Gath and Eqron. Remember that Rainey believed that Khirbet Qeiyafa was Sha`arayim (Garfinkel et al, Footsteps, 165).]
Through scepticism (as displayed in discussions I have seen along the way) we could systematically reduce the number of gates on the Qeiyafa site from two to one and even to none; but the two gates are now clearly revealed (Garfinkel et al Footsteps 68-73). Also, there are possibly two references (not merely one) to a Sha`arayim in the text (as it has been "received", imperfectly), though these could be understood, by injudicious emendation, as both referring to the gates of Eqron.
Nevertheless, whatever the etymology of the name Sha`arayim (and its possible connection with gates), and whatever number of gates were in the circular wall of Qeiyafa (though a western and a southern gate are now plain to see), it is still reasonable to accept that the writer was using the name Sha`arayim to refer to what we now know as Khirbet Qeiyafa; certainly it is not Gath or Eqron, and not Azekah or Socoh, nor the mysterious Ephes-dammim ("end of bloodshed"? or "before there was any bloodshed"? or "border of bloodshed"? referring to the space between Gath and Qeiyafa?) which was the place where the Philistines camped (17:1); and although it may have been described as "the circular place" (HM`GL, 17:20) its name would have been Sha`arayim, which is elsewhere placed in the "lowland" of Judah, with Azekah and Socoh (Joshua 15:33-36).
Consider again the possibility that Khirbet Qeiyafa was Gob.
Nadav Na'aman, 2008 (In Search of the ancient name of Khirbet Qeiyafa, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8, Article 21).
Gôb is mentioned twice (2 Samuel 21:18, 19) as a place where Phlistia and Israel fought, and where giants of Gath were slain, including (apparently) Goliath the Gittite. Gob does not appear anywhere else in the Scriptures, and is thus another possible name for the briefly occupied Khirbet Qeiyafa. The four possible names could each refer to a feature of the site: Gob (high?), 'Adithayim (elevated place?), Sha`arayim (two gates), HM`GL (circular wall).
With regard to the toponyms of the ancient Levant, Anson Rainey declared that "most geographical names are appellatives, describing some feature or aspect of the site" (The Sacred Bridge, 2006, 2014, 16c); and -ayim endings have "locative force" (Gittayim, Horonayim), though some are merely dual (Qarnayim, Sha`erayim) (17a). (Actually, it was Rainey who first identified Khirbet Qeiyafa as Sha`arayim.) Rainey classifies Gibeah, Geba, Gibeon, Gibbthon, and Ramah under the heading "topogragraphic descriptions" (17b), but places Gob (17c) under "local fauna" (meaning locusts? or "cistern"?).
Gob has been tentatively identified with Gibbeton (supposedly near Eqron), belonging to the tribe of Dan (Jos 19:44, 21:23) or to the Philistines (1 Kg 15:27, 16:15, 17) (HALOT, 1, 176); but this equation would take the short-lived Qeiyafa into the time of King Omri of Israel, in the ninth century BCE. Our main interest is in the Early Iron Age settlement on this Qeiyafa hill, but it was occupied before and after that period. The people who used the olive press of the Persian-Hellenistic period, and the owners of the buried coins, and the dwellers of the Roman-Byzantine and Ottoman eras, must have had a name for the place. Qeiyafa has been hypothetically connected with the well-known Aramaic word Keypha' ("rock", cp. Petra and Petros), because of the white cliffs made by the Elah River. (Kh Q Vol 2, Ch, 4, 37-40, Shimon Ilani). Or was it named "Rock" because it was a fortress built on elevated rock? It seems highly unlikely that the name Gob morphed into Qeiyafa, but it may well have been a name applied to this site, before the casemate wall and its two gates were built.
Summary: The Purpose of Sha`arayim
Garfinkel et al, Footsteps, 2018, 66-88 (The city during the time of David [and King Saul!])
Taking the two Qeiyafa inscriptions together, and the archaeological results from the site, I offer a hypothetical scenario, attempting to characterize the various buildings and rooms that have been excavated, and to describe the functions of this fortified town, during the reign of King Saul.
The ostracon was found in Area B, a complex of buildings adjoining the West Gate, on its north side, specifically in an interior room of B2, which might have been a chapel, perhaps for prophets. Possible indications that this was the sector for orthodox prophets of Yahweh: [no Egyptian scarabs, as in some other cult-places (C3, C10?); actually a green scarab was found in debris] its cultic pillar (masseba) was not acting as a standing sacred stone (like those in cultic areas C3 and D1, and in a chamber of the South Gate), and it was perhaps brought in from the adjoining West Gate plaza, but inverted and built into a partition wall of room B1, thus negating its power (78, 131); the presence of the oracle-ostracon, bearing the name Yahu and the title Elohim. The whole B complex is reminiscent of a monastery (78): refectory (B1), chapel (B2), lavatory/latrine (B3, note the drain), dormitory (B4); library (scrolls kept in the casemate chamber of the chapel, and in the room where the ostracon was exhibited?).
This is an appealing idea, since "the sons of the prophets" had brotherhoods in various places, such as Jericho and Bethel (2 Kings 2), and Gilgal, where the "man of God" Elisha visited them and shared a pot of (poisonous) soup with them (2 Kings 4:38-41); in the time of King Saul, Naioth ("habitation") was a place in Ramah where Samuel supervised a community of prophets, and where David took refuge from Saul (1 Sm 19:18-24); this seems to have been a male coenobium, but we also have to take account of "a woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets", whose husband had died, and who approached Elisha for assistance, to prevent her sons being taken into servitude (2 Kg 4:1-7). Samuel had sons of his own (1 Sm 8:1-3), but his wife is not mentioned.
Not only priests, but also prophets were associated with "high places", as was Samuel, and likewise Saul before he became King (1 Sm 9-10); and sacrificial feasts were held at such places (1 Sm 9:22-25); the fortress of Sha`arayim was primarily an "administrative and military" centre (Footsteps, 89), but it also had features of a "high place" (bamah), with its gates (73), and its cult rooms (141-144), and its areas for public gatherings (160-161).
However, my coenobium hypothesis was merely a first-glance case, and we need to look more closely at the contents of each of the Area B rooms (Hoo-Goo Kang et al, Kh Q Vol. 2, Ch. 6, 61-91; Ch. 17, 417-431). Let us suppose that this two-gate stronghold was a garrison-town, and that the Western Gate was where the troops marched in and out, and consequently let us consider whether the B and D complexes of buildings and spaces on each side of this gateway had a military focus.
The excavators noticed that there were no four-room dwellings at Sha`arayim (that is, in the excavated areas), though these were typical at other contemporary sites using the casemate-wall plan, such as Tel Beth-Shemesh, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell en-Nasbeh (Kh Q Vol. 2, 90). One answer is that this town is the earliest-known example, and it was destroyed before it could expand its urban planning. I offer another possibility: it was principally designed as a military base, and its inhabitants were mainly soldiers, who lived in tents.
(Note that the 50-metre gap along the south-west wall, between sections C and D, has not been archaeolgically excavated, and at present it offers itself for interpretation as a camp site or parade ground for soldiers guarding the two gates.)
At the southern end of Area D there is a religious building (D1 or D100), attached to three casemates. (Kh Q Vol 2, 276-317) It has two standing stones (one with an offering table) in separate rooms (J, I); it has yielded a double cup libation vessel (reminiscent of a human breast?) in Room A; and in Room J, three iron swords (blades assumed to be swords rather than sickles). In this respect, swords (presumably of iron) are associated with such warriors as Saul and his son Jonathan (1 Sm 13:22), and David, who had a sword of Jonathan (18:4) and the sword of Goliath (21:9).
Area D has a temple containing swords, and an open space extending southward from the right (southern) side of the West Gate for the length of four casemates, possibly an assembly area for soldiers. If Area D was in fact a military sector, it is likely that Area B, north of the West Gate, was also controlled by the army.
Hence, we retrace our steps to the B buildings, remembering that damage was done in later periods, such that B5 is reduced to a casemate containing Iron Age pottery. B4 had at least three rooms, and might well have been a dormitory, for the leaders of the army, who did not sleep in tents with the lower ranks. B3 has drainage, so liquids were present in this place; its three rooms might have involved laundry and lavatory activities; there was some smashed pottery on the floor.
B2, with four rooms, is the structure of supreme interest, and I propose that it was the officers' mess. From the entrance, an elegant set of four steps leads down to the floor level of the main room (ca 5 x 3.5 m), where stands a basin (for feet-washing, as in Genesis 18:4?); in the centre of the room was a round installation, for which a posthole is suggested (could this be a support for a roof made of tent-material? or for a food table?); pottery lay on the floor; and a blade (for cutting meat?); a podium made of stones, and a basalt slab may have formed a unit; in the adjoining smaller room (1.5 m wide) a large grinding stone was discovered, and more pottery. Below these two spaces, was the room where the ostracon was discovered; it was entered through a narrow doorway and down two steps, and it was 2 metres wide: it was not a library, but a place for preparation of food and drink for the refectory, I suggest; it had storage jars, a pyxis, a basaltic bowl, a strainer bowl, and a decorated strainer-jug; this means that barley beer (with husks removed by strainers) was served in this establisment, and evidence of wine may be hidden among the artefacts. Finally, the casemate room had pottery sherds, and animal bones; and a round fireplace in the floor. It all adds up to an establishment catering to diners, and in this setting they would be the élite of the military personnel.
B1, with its two tabun ovens, was a cookhouse, catering for the soldiers, and perhaps visitors who came through this gate to pay taxes, delivering their produce to the storehouse (in Area F).
If B2 was in fact the dining room for army officers of King Saul, how do we explain the presence of the inscribed ostracon, which names David as the servant of God and apparently the successor to the throne? The Scripture could clarify this: David is seen as the victorious champion in the battle of Elah (1 Sam 17:48-54), and thereafter Saul set him over his men of war (18:5), appointing him "commander of a thousand" (18:13); his military successes made him popular, with Saul's servants (18:5), and with the women of the realm (18:16-17); and he was the King's son-in-law, through his marriage to Princess Michal, achieved by the bride-price of a thousand Philistian foreskins (18:20-29), and this exploit increased the esteem in which he was held in Israel (18:30); in sum, "all Israel and Judah loved David" (18:16). So a prophet's testimonial to David's prowess and charisma would not be out of place in the military barracks of a garrison town of King Saul. However, although Saul had initially loved David (16;21), and made him his armour bearer (16:21) and his personal musician to calm his turbulent spirit (16:23) this monarch's jealous fear of David is emphasized all along the way (18:8-9, 15, 28-29).
This envious rage of Saul towards David finally overcame the musical therapy that David provided for him (1 Sm 16:23), and after another of David's successful anti-Philistian campaigns, in one of their sessions Saul hurled his spear at David (19:8-10). David had to leave his wife Michal in his house at Gibeah (19:11-17) and flee for refuge with Samuel at Naioth in Ramah (19:18), but every attempt by Saul and his men to extricate David from Naioth, led to them lying naked on the ground in ecstaic frenzy, in accordance with the current byword: "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (19:19-24; 10:10-11).
Again, when David sought assistance from the priests of Nob, Saul reacted angrily (21-22). The priest Ahimelek gave David sacred bread and the sword of Goliath (21:1-9). Ultimately, David went into service with the King of Gath, but carrying out his own guerrilla operations against enemies of Israel (21:10-15, 27:1-12), and was being constantly pursued by Saul (23:14). However, the outcome of his visit to Nob was disastrous: Saul had difficulty finding anyone who would massacre the priests of Nob, all of whom he had summoned to Gibeah: but Doeg the Edomite, his chief herdsman, who had reported their alleged treason (21:7, 22:9-10) agreed to perform the odious task, and fulfilled it brutally. He slew "fourscore and five persons that wore a linen ephod" (22:18). However, Abiatar, one of Ahimelek's sons, escaped with his ephod and joined David and his band of men (22:21-23), so that now David had his own priest to consult (23:1-13, 30:7-8), as also the prophet Gad (22:5).
Meanwhile, Doeg consummated his destructive work at Nob: "with the edge of the sword he smote men, women, children, and sucklings; and oxen, asses, and sheep" (22:19). The Nob we encounter later is close to Jerusalem (Isaiah 10:32, Nehemiah 11:32). In the present instance, could Nob be an error for Gob, and might Gob be Khirbet Qeiyafa? The various cult-rooms of Qeiyafa would certainly require the continual presence of priests. In earlier days, Saul had Ahiyah son of Ahitub with his ephod at Gibeah (14:3, 18), and he may have been exempted from the slaughter; but Samuel deserted Saul (15:35), and died (25:1); and apparently Saul was without the comfort of priests, finally turning to a woman to act as a medium to call up the spirit of Samuel (28:3-25).
If the record of the day's labour of Doeg the Edomite (22:18-19) is a description of the destruction of Iron-Age Qeiyafa, then Saul in his madness has depopulated and demolished his prize piece of architecture. It could well have been the base of the former priests of Shiloh. The Nob we know seems too close to Jerusalem to be This would certainly account for the brief life of the stronghold with the two gates. That the priests stationed there, as well as the soldiers, were favourable to David (witness the oracle of the prophet against Guliyut, and the preservation of the Anaq's sword) then Saul would see the place as infested with the stench of David, and call for its abandonment.
Perhaps so, but I prefer to imagine a later devastation, with vengeful Philistians rampaging through the hated enclosure, at their first opportunity, after their victory in the Battle of Mount Gilboa (30:1-7). The presence of one of the sons of Saul in this precinct, might give support to this scenario. Eshbaal would have been taken by General Abner from there (or from Gibeah), across the Jordan River to Mahanayim, to be Saul's successor (2 Sm 2:8-10).
The smashed jar bearing the name Eshbaal was in Room B (6x5 m) in Building C11, which was an open but enclosed space; it was apparently a sacred place, as it adjoined the elaborate shrine C10, which was to the left (west) of the South Gate. What lay over its other side is unknown, because it is in the unexcavated space between areas C and D.
It was possibly called "the House of Knowledge" (B d`) because its devotees entered into trance states and achieved mystical knowledge there. (In the Ugaritic epics, Dan'el the ruler of Rapha [?!] performed sacrifices and incubation in his sanctuary, to communicate with Baal and El; and Karit, weeping in his chamber, has a vision of El).
Be that as it may, this small sanctuary may have been the Prince's private chapel, and the House of Knowledge may have been in the same place, or else in the Prophets' college, at Gilgal, or Bethel, or Ramah. However, King Saul himself was associated with prophets, and he had ecsataic experiences, leading to the proverbial utterance, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Sm 10:11, 19:24).
This chapel (C11) may have had access to the adjoining sanctuary (C10), which must have been the main place of worship for the town and its environs.
C10
D1
C3
The fortress was the home of Prince Eshbaal (not King David). It had been built by King Saul, his father, as an outpost for surveillance over the Philistines of Gath and Ekron. Its name was apparently Sha`arayim, which could mean 'two gates', and this is actually a feature of this walled town. It would have been given this name at the time when it was built; if the hill had been inhabited previously it would have had a different appellation, which had no hint of gates, such as Gob or `Adithayim.
The two inscriptions together indicate that this short-lived fortress was extant during the reign of King Saul; he had possibly taken the name `Abd`ashtart (Servant of `Ashtart, the goddess Astarte) as plausibly reconstructed from the sequence BN | BD`… on the Ishba`al jar inscription
Saul's son Eshbaal was apparently in residence there; and an eyewitness delivered an oracle of Yahweh relating to the slaying of Guliyut the Anakite by Dawid the Servant of God, and this encounter took place in the time of King Saul (1 Samuel 17). Neither David nor Eshbaal had acceded to their respective throne at that time (2 Sm 2:1-10).
Apparently Eshbaal was not present at Gilboa; the sons of Saul who perished on that occasion were Yehonatan (Jonathan), Abinadab, and Malkishua` (1 Sam 31:2). If Eshbaal was a mystic, and the guardian of the fortress in the south, then this might account for his absence in the war. (As a seminary student, in "the house of knowledge", he might have been exempt from military service [?!].) Even when he was King of all Israel he did not go to war in the struggle with Judah; Abner, the commander of his troops, led them into battle (2 Sm 2:8-12).
After their Gilboa victory the Philistines would have destroyed Saul's citadel at Gibeah, and presumably also the fortress of Sha`arayim, which shows signs of deliberate destruction, although not by burning.
It is likely that it was open for the taking, with its garrison troops fighting with the combined army at Gilboa.
After the death of Saul and Jonathan in that battle against the Philistines at Mount Gilboa, David ruled over Judah (2 Samuel 2:1-4) in Hebron (situated between Gaza and the Dead Sea); and General Abner installed Eshbaal (the surviving son of Saul) as King of Israel in Mah.anaim (2 Sam 2:8-10); he was 40 years old and he reigned for two years.The name Mahanaim, meaning 'two camps', suggests that this was Qeiyafa, which had two camps in the Elah Valley for the battle between Philistia and Israel in which David won the day by felling Goliath (2 Sam 17). Its significance in the tradition of Israel was that the Patriarch Jacob named it Mahanayim when he encountered a host of angels there, on his way to meet Esau (Gen 32:1-3). In this case the -ayim ending may be honorific rather than dual, unlike Sha`arayim ("two gates"). However, Jacob also divided his entourage into two companies here (mh.nwt, Gen 32:7-8). Mahanaim (identified as probably Tell edh-Dhahab el-Gharbi, in the Jabbok Valley; Rainey, Sacred Bridge, 115, 159) is East of Mount Gilboa, in Gilead, over the Jordan and north of the Dead Sea, far away from David and the Philistines. Nevertheless, Eshbaal could have inhabited the Qeiyafa palace during the time when Saul was pursuing David. If Eshbaal had a mystical side, we might recall that his father Saul was "also among the prophets" (1 Sam 10:9-13, 19:21-24) and even practised necromancy (1 Sam 28:5ff). This important fortress, and Saul's capital city Gibeah, would have been destroyed when the Philistines overran the Kingdom of Israel, after the battle of Gilboa (1 Sam 31.1-7).
The ostracon confirms that David was at the Battle of Elah. against the Philistines of Gath and Eqron. The account of the battle in the Bible (1 Sam 17) has brothers of David, from Bethlehem in Judah, as soldiers in the army of Israel. When the Philistines fled to their cities, 'the men of Israel and Judah' pursued them, and returned as 'the children of Israel' (17:52-53). The pact between David of Judah and Saul's son Jonathan of the tribe of Benjamin (18:1-4) perhaps symbolizes the union of Israel and Judah in the time of King Saul. Jonathan renewed his covenant with David, and even with the house of David (20:15-17), realizing that David would probably establish a new dynasty in Israel, based on the popular view of him, as epitomized in the saying, "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands" (18:7-8, 21:10-11, both passages relate this to David being destined for kingship). Eshbaal may have felt the same way about David, or at least have had knowledge of the political situation, and of Yahweh's "election" of David through Samuel (16:13). This was mentioned in the ostracon (line 4, on raising a foundation of kingship with David), and it would thus appear that a religious party supporting David as the young pretender, so to speak, was resident in the fortress of Shaarayim. The ostracon of David was in building B2, attached to the West Gate (Area B might have been a monastery for a school of prophets), while the jar of Eshbaal was in building C11, adjoining C10 (which was apparently the main shrine of the city) near the South Gate (Garfinkel et al, 78-83).
Historical Reconstruction
Let us assume for argument's sake (and there will be much argumentative argumentation in response to this) that the two books of Samuel in the Bible have some modicum of reliable information, which can be related to the coeval Hebrew inscriptions available to us, and thereby produce a historical scenario, which gives credence to such characters as Saul, Eshbaal, David, and Goliath.
We actually have a number of written documents from places mentioned in the early stories of conflict between Philistia and Israel, involving the Ark of the Covenant (though this sacred object is never mentioned in inscriptions): the ostracon from Ebenezer (1 Samuel 4), if it is Izbet Sartah; and four pieces from Bethshemesh (1 Sam 6); three of these texts employ the neo-syllabary, as found on the Qeiyafa ostracon. [add footnotes]
[1] The united kingdom of Israel under Yahweh and Samuel
The nation Israel had come out of Egypt (Judges 19.30) and settled in the land of Canaan (Kana`an, Judges 21.12) with their centre at Shiloh, north of Bethel and south of Shekem (Judges 21:19); at Shiloh there was an annual feast for sacrifice to Yahweh (Judges 21.19, 1 Samuel 1.3). Mizpah, south of Bethel and north of Gibeah of Benjamin, was also a meeting place for "all the children of Israel", coming "from Dan to Beersheba, and the land of Gilead" (Judges 20.1), and similarly in the time of Samuel, when the assembly fasted in repentance, and offered libations of water (1 Samuel 7.5-6). The town of Shiloh had the original Tabernacle (Exodus 40.1-2), the Tent of Meeting ('ohel mo`ed) (1 Samuel 2.22), the portable Temple (heykal) (3.3). In it was housed "the Ark of God" (3.4) or "the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh of Hosts enthroned with the Kerubim" (4.4, literally "sitting the kerubs", meaning "sitting on a throne between winged sphinxes" as ancient kings did.).
The Ark at Ebenezer =Izbet Sartah
ostracon: I am (have been) learning the letters
Who invented this neo-syllabary?
It is attested at Rehob, a Canaanian city (Tell es-Sarem sherd); also at Qubur al-Walayda, which was in Philistian territory.
Perhaps it was devised by Samuel, for writing his "book" (spr), a treatise on kingship, the founding document for the establishment of Saul as ruler over Israel, which was presented to Yahweh (10.25); at any rate, this new syllabary was a current script in that era (Iron Age I), though the Eshbaal inscription shows that a form of consonantal writing was also employed in Israel. The Qeiyafa ostracon could be regarded as a foundation document for the kingship of David, given that the word "foundation" (ysd) occurs in the fourth line; and Samuel's spr may have been a sherd, rather than a scroll.
The governance of Israel in this late pre-monarchic period was in the hands of Samuel (Shemu'el), who functioned in the theocracy as priest (2.35), prophet (3.19), seer (9.19), and judge (7.15-17). Israel was a kingdom, but its Monarch was YHWH of Hosts, ever since the nation Israel received its Constitution after the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 20-24; 1 Sam 8.6-8). When the people of Israel demanded that Samuel find a human king to reign over them, they were rejecting Yahweh as their Divine King (8:8, 12:12).
At Gilgal, Samuel gave the people a summary of the "righteous acts" (s.idqot, as at the end of the Ostracon, with reference to David's "virtuous acts") that Yahweh had performed for them and their ancestors, beginning with their Patriarch Jacob, and the period of oppression in Egypt; the mission of Moses and Aaron, leading them out of Egypt; their apostasy when they settled in the land, worshiping the Baalim and the Ashtarot (male and female gods); consequently being placed under the power of Sisera and the army of Hazor; and being delivered into the hands of the Philistines, and the King of Moab; but Yahweh sent the Judges, namely Yerubba`al, Bedan (Barak?! some mss), Jepthah (Yiftah,), and Shemu'el, to rescue them (1 Sm 12:6-11). This could have been written in a document that survived for an editor to reproduce, or in the manner of ancient historians, the narrator composed appropriate words for the occasion (cp. Josephus on the last speech made at Masada: did the historian have a copy of it, as with Abraham Lincoln's G Address, or did the writer invent it?) Our Qeiyafa Ostracon, and the Lakish Letters on ostraca (6th Century BCE), show us that archival material was sometimes available. The Biblical accounts of words and events from this period might well have been recorded in writing, and been reproduced in the Books of Samuel. There is no verbatim citing of the oracle on the Qeiyafa Ostracon, but the idea it presents, of having "my servant" David, "the servant of God", the victor over the Philistian giant, as a new "foundation" for the kingdom, is echoed in the words of General Abner, an uncle of Saul, speaking to King Eshbaal, son of Saul: "Yahweh had sworn to David ... to remove the kingship from the House of Saul, and set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, form Dan to Beersheba" (2 Sam 3:9-10); and to the elders of Israel: "Yahweh has said of David, By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel from the hands of the Philistians and from the hands of all their enemies" (2 Sam 3:18).
Shiloh and Ebenezer (Izbet Sartah) and Beth-Shemesh have been excavated in modern times
The destruction of Shiloh, which was proverbial ( Ps 78:60; Jer 7:11-14) but not recorded, must have been at the hands of the Philistines: they took the Ark of the Covenant, when it had been brought as a talisman from Shiloh, from the battlefield of Ebenezer (Izbet Sartah), and there was great consternation in Shiloh, with the death of the three priests, Eli and his two sons. The Philistines may have taken this opportunity to destroy the sacred site. When the Ark was returned to Israel at Beth-Shemesh it was not restored to Shiloh (presumably now in ruins), but sent to Kiriath-jearim for safekeeping, in the house of Abinadab on the hill, under the guardianship of Eleazar, one of his sons, who was consecrated for the task (1 Sam 4-7), and it remained there for some twenty years (7:2); this period seems to end with the enthronement of Saul. Saul reportedly had it at Gibea (?) at one time ( ). David eventually took it from "Abinadab's house on the hill" to Jerusalem, escorted by two sons of Abinadab, named Uzzah and Ahio (2 Sam 6:1-11 Baale-Judah).
[Are we to fit the reigns of Saul and Eshbaal into this period of twenty years??]
"Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life." Samuel's judicial circuit encompassed Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, and his hometown Rama, where he built an altar to Yahweh (1 Sam 7:15-17).
[2] The united kingdom of Israel under Saul
The first king of Israel was Saul (Sha'ul) of Gibeah, from the tribe of Benjamin, which had been almost annihilated for its wickedness, as reported in the final chapters of the Book of Judges (19-21); the sin of Gibeah was similar to that of Sodom (Genesis 19, Judges 19); such lawlessness was prevalent in the days when there was no king in Israel (Judges 19.1, 21.25) except King Yahweh (1 Sam 8.7, 12.12), and "each man did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21.25); and yet Gibeah became King Saul's capital city.
Similarly, in the Book of Ruth (4.13-22) King David is given Ruth as an ancestor, a woman of Moab; this seems anomalous in the orthodox theology of Israel (Genesis 19.36-38, Nehemiah 12.23-27). And David's ultimate capital city was Yerushalayim, a foreign enclave, also known as Yebus (Judges 19.10-11, 1 Chron 11.4-5).
Saul (Sha'ul), son of Kish (Qish), of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam 9.1-2) was anointed by the priest, prophet, and judge named Samuel (Shemu'el) to be prince (ngyd) over Israel (10.1). Samuel was responding to a request from the elders of Israel, who had approached him at his base in Ramah, and demanded that he appoint a king over them, so that they could be like all the nations (8.4-5). This was rejection of the current ideology and theology of Israel, that Yahweh was the King, who had saved them from the Egyptians and redeemed them from slavery (8.6-9). The coronation took place at Mizpah, in the presence of all the tribes of Israel in their thousands, though Saul showed reluctance when it came to the deciding moment, and hid himself (10.17-27).
The kingship of Saul was confirmed by Samuel and the people at Gilgal (11.12-15)
But leadership was conjoint, under Samuel and Saul (11.7), playing the sacerdotal and royal roles, respectively. Tension was intensified when Saul performed sacrifices (13:8-15), and the mandate of Heaven was withdrawn from his dynasty, we might say (Sinicly speaking). Nevertheless, Saul continued to reign in Gibeah
[Samuel reiterated this] when King Saul had been disobedient to the will of God, in failing to annihilate Amaleq, and "the word of Yahweh came to Samuel, saying, I regret that I have appointed Saul to be king, for he has turned back from following me" (15.10). Samuel reminded Saul that Yahweh had anointed him "king over Israel", to be "the head of the tribes of Israel" (15.17)
The armed forces were made up of combatants from every tribe of Israel. At their first mustering in Saul's reign, at Bezek, for a war against Ammon (11.1-4), "the men of Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah were thirty thousand " (11.8). David's brothers from Bethlehem of Judah were in the army at the Valley of Elah (17.12-30).
In the period in which the stories of Samson are set, when there was no king in Israel (Judges 18.1, 19.1) the people of Israel "did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and Yahweh delivered them into the hand of the Philistians for forty years (Judges 13.1). The men of Judah said to Samson, whose mission was to liberate Israel from Philistian bondage (13.5), but who was now to be bound up and given to the Philistians, the men of Judah reminded him that "the Philistians are rulers over us" (15.11). During the reign of Saul there were many battles with Philistines (1 Sam 14.47, 52; 13.2-14.46, Mikmash; 17.1-58, Elah Valley), therefore Sha`arayim would have been built to house an Israelian garrison, to guard against Philistian incursions from Gath and Ekron. At the same time the Philistines had their own garrisons in the territory where tribes of Israel had settled (1 Sam 10.5, Bethel; 13.3, 14.1, 6, Geba`; Bethlehem??). (Dawwara)
Was the Qeiyafa fortress, with its gates and tower, extant at the time of the Battle of the Valley of Elah? Probably it was indeed there (either under construction or completed), on the Sha`arayim road, and its provocative presence might have been the reason for the Philistian armies coming out in full force, from Gath and Ekron, because of the threat it posed. The valiant deeds of the charismatic David (as mentioned in the oracle on the ostracon) induced panic and flight, on this occasion, but they would return.
My readings of the two Sha`arayim inscriptions indicate who built this fortress: it must have been the King who had his residence in Tell el-Ful (with casemate walls). Finkelstein has characterized David's Jerusalem as a mere village; the same would apply to Saul's Gibea` (regal luxury begins with Shlomo); Gibea`(between Jerusalem and Gibeon, on a not-east line) had been reduced to ruins in the time of the Judges (19-21), and the accursed tribe of Benjamin had been decimated; but in the aftermath it nevertheless produced two kings, namely Saul and Eshbaal. In the reign of King Saul, Gibea` was given a citadel with casemate walls, like Sha`arayim (Khirbet Qeiyafa), and like the contemporary Khirbet ed-Dawwara (Footsteps, 169; Finkelstein 1990; Na`aman ), situated a few miles north-east of Gibea', and likewise built on bedrock, with casemate walls. This seems to have been occupied by a Philistian garrison, but its place in the scheme of things needs to be considered here.
The Qeiyafa ostracon has the long-awaited contemporary mention of David (written syllabically as da-wi-di) along with his foe Goliyat (gu-li-yu-tu), and any denial of this I will see as blind prejudice. I regret that I can not supply Saul and Solomon by name, but we can find 'ShB`L, David's rival in the short period of the disunited kingdom.
An idea has occurred to me, concerning Qeiyafa and Saul: in choosing this empty site (ancient Gob?) and building a new Gibea` ("Hill") on it, as a military base, and as a centre for collection of taxes (agricultural produce), and as a cult centre, Saul was following the same procedure as David, having his new capital city (for all Israel) at a neutral spot, Jerusalem of the Jebusites. The Bible does not tell us anything about this significant city, Sha`arayim, but it might have been passed over in the narrative because it was a rival to David's Jerusalem. There is no record of the destruction of Shiloh, either, though its historic importance was never forgotten.
For its period around 1000 BCE, Qeiyafa has yielded the most elaborate evidence of an Israelian religious establishment, with several cult-rooms. The question arises whether the Ark of the Covenant was ever taken there. The answer would be: probably not. Archaeology has revealed that Sha`arayim was not a centre of Yahwism, despite the reference to Yahu Elohim in the ostracon (that was a relic from the time before the apostasy); Saul had slaughtered the priests of Yahweh (1 Sam 22), and this act should indicate that he had turned his back on the worship of the God of Eli and Samuel. Saul’s son Ishbaal (named in an inscription) was apparently the overseer of the fortified town, and he had changed his name from Ishyaw, to display his devotion to Baal; the worship of a female deity is evident in the cult places, presumably the Ashtart (consort of Baal) that Samuel had contended with (1 Sam 7:1-4): when the Ark was taken to Kiryath-yearim, the people of Israel turned away from Baal and Ashtart and served Yahweh exclusively; but when the royal family (excepting Jonathan and David) became apostates, the new worship centre with two gates was devoted to “strange gods” (7:3), and that is where the populace came for their religious expression, through tithes and offerings, and sacred meals.
The narrative passes over this renewed backsliding, and retains its focus on David and his relationship with priests and prophets of Yahweh. It is faintly possible that the western gate (leading to Area B, with its standing pillar incorporated into a wall, out of sight and out of mind, and the Yahwistic ostracon relating to David) may have been for worshippers of Yahweh; and the southern gate, with its pillar standing in the first chamber (of four), on the left, was for devotees of Baal and Ashtart, with shrine C11 and its small attached chapel C10 having royal patronage; and presumably King Saul or Prince Ishbaal would sit in judgement in this gateway; the donkey stable in C2 may have housed the royal riding animal, or beasts of burden.
Samuel had made a pact with Israel, whereby Yahweh would deliver them from the Philistines if they repented and served Yahweh faithfully. Their king, though generally successful in confronting Philistia (1 Sam 13-14), “all his days” (14:52) eventually led his people astray.
Gilboa was the site of the final battle against Philistia for Saul and his son Jonathan, and two other sons; their defeat led to Philistian occupation of some cities of Israel, when the inhabitants fled (1 Sam 31.1-7). This could account for the destruction of Sha`arayim (“the Qeiyafa ruin”): the soldiers stationed there by Saul would have gone to Mount Gilboa to fight in the army of Israel; after the defeat, Eshbaal and his retainers would have abandoned the town; in the aftermath of the battle some men of Israel “forsook their cities and fled” (31:7).
It is recorded (31:9-13) that the bodies of Saul and his three sons were hung on the wall of Beth-Shan (finding a wall at that site is difficult problem, but not insurmountable). Saul’s armour was deposited in a temple of Ashtart, and while the celebrated temple of Astarte in Philistian Ashkelon is a possible choice (S. R. Driver, Herodotos), Beth Shan itself may have been the resting place; and a connection between Saul and Ashtart would have been known to the Philistines. Baal and Ashtart were the deities of Saul’s kingdom, and they were worshipped at Sha`arayim.
[3a] The northern kingdom of Israel under Eshbaal
[3b] The kingdom of Judah under David
[4] The united kingdom of Israel under David
CLOSING SUMMATION
Adding up the evidence, the total seems to place the brief existence of the ancient fortified town named Sha`arayim, also known as Khirbet Qeiyafa (and additional aliases), within the reign of King Saul, ruler of the United Kingdom of Israel, at the end of Iron Age I and the beginning of Iron Age II (approximately before and after the year 1000 BCE).
It has been noted that "the architectural, ceramic and paleographic finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa as a whole clearly represent a cultural beginning, which can naturally contain some elements of the previous material culture".
(Anat Cohen-Weinberger and Nava Panitz-Cohen 2014, 409; Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2, The Black Juglets, 393-414)
The two periods in the evidence are surely (1) the epoch of the Judges (Iron I), culminating in the rule of Samuel; (2) the new era of the Monarchy (Iron II), beginning with King Saul as ruler over all Israel (and not David ruling over Judah, as Garfinkel and his team continually assert). In Israel, including Judah, the transition from Iron IB to Iron IIA was from theocratic polity under 'judges' and priests (with Samuel as spokesperson for the Deity) to monarchic rule under King Saul, with new administration structures for agriculture and the armed forces, and new fashions in culture. This shift was not from the reign of King Saul to the reign of King David, even though David was a historic figure in that period, as the young 'pretender', a charismatic claimant to the throne of Israel.
Consider now the evidence for the transition from theocracy with Yahweh as King to monarchy with Saul as King and as human representative of Yahweh (1 Sam 8:4-7, 10:24-26), though priestly functions were not part of the King's role in Israel (13:8-14).
First, the ceramic evidence: the pottery collection is judged to be a typological bridge between two periods, maintaining the tradition of Iron Age I, but introducing some features of Iron Age IIA (as tabulated by Hoo-Goo Kang and Yosef Garfinkel, Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1, 2009, 119-150; and dated by Garfinkel and Kang 2011, The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Very Late Iron Age I or Very Early Iron Age IIA? IEJ, 61, 171-183).
The pottery assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa is a typological ‘bridge’ between two periods. It maintains the Iron Age I tradition, while introducing several characteristics that later became the classical markers of the Iron Age IIA. Being a single-period Iron Age site of short duration, Khirbet Qeiyafa reveals a curtailed time-span of 20 years or so, within the time frame established by the six 14C determinations. Such a short period could never be identified at large tell sites because they were occupied continuously for hundreds of years.
(Garfinkel and Kang 2011, 181)
Second, the architectural evidence: the incorporation of casemate walls as part of the fortification of Israelian cities was typical of David's reign, but Saul began it in his capital city Gibeah (Tell el-Ful), and also in his military, administrative, and cultic centre Sha`arayim (Khirbet Qeiyafa), and presumably in Tell ed-Dawwara (even though it was under Philistian occupation).
Third, the metal evidence: "a very rich assemblage of metal finds, including an exceptionally high proportion of iron objects ... that characterize the beginning of iron roduction and the transition to the utilitarian use of iron, alongside bronze objects ... that are typical examples of Canaanite bronzework". The metallurgical assemblage (44 bronze items, 42 iron objects) exhibits a transition from Iron Age I, with the employment of iron for ornamentation (bracelets) and limited everyday usage (knives), to Iron Age II, with the adoption of iron for utilitarian purposes, specifically tools and weapons (Iron Age II). However, though there are three iron objects that could be agricultural sickles or military swords (I would favour this interpretation, if Building D1, where they were found, was a military temple), Khirbet Qeiyafa "does not contain any of the tools and weapons, such as plowshares or arrowheads, that are abundant at typical Iron Age II sites of the Southern Levant such as Beer Sheba".
Fourth, the epigraphic evidence: the ostracon employs the neo-syllabary of the time of the Judges (Iron I), but the Eshbaal jar uses consonantal writing that has characters related to those of the syllabary; the letter-forms that are typical of the Phoenician alphabet (as on the Gezer plaque and the Tel Zayit stone) are not found in Saul's realm.
cultic evidence?
The fortified town of Shaarayim was a remarkable achievement of King Saul, so why is it almost completely ignored in the books of Samuel?
Anti-royalist and royalist accounts (Jerusalem Bible 303, footnote). However, the place was another "abomination of desolation", and the Yahwisuc chroniclers would have wanted to draw a veil over it.
Final Deliberations
HERMANN MICHAEL NIEMANN Comments and Questions about the Interpretation of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Talking with Yosef Garfinkel. Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte, Journal for Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law 23 (2017) 245-262 .
Niemann rejects all Garfinkel's claims about connecting Qeiyafa with King David, and sees it as an independent polity.
"Garfinkel’s interpretation of the finds and findings in Qeiyafa are methodologically problematic, primarily bible-centric, and factually unsound. In my opinion much data speaks in favour of Qeiyafa being a comparatively independent settlement, a micro-polity [or “Corporate Community” (J. Bintliff 1999; 2014) or “Dorfstaat” (E. Kirsten 1956; cf. F. de Polignac 1995; Lehmann and Niemann 2006; Niemann, in Vorb.).] Its location between the Judean mountain region on the one side and the coastal plain on the other side made it an understandably short-lived polity in the Shephelah. ... Sometime between 980 and 970 BC or slightly later (according to Finkelstein and Fantalkin 2012: 41, 56f.) when Gath reached the zenith of its power ... Qeiyafa very likely fell under the influence of Gath. It was probably destroyed during the eastern expansion of Gath and subsequently abandoned....[ (Lehmann and Niemann 2014: 85–86, cf. Na’aman 2010: 514ff).] Where its residents went and other questions regarding Qeiyafa remain open. [Open for debate is the hypothesis of Finkelstein and Fantalkin that Qeiyafa possessed relations with the Gibeon-Bethel region. Nevertheless, this need not be an alternative to my own hypothesis.]" (256-257)
Niemann's main disagreement with Garfinkel's interpretation is that it is "primarily bible-centric", an accusation that could not be brought against his own speculative case. However, in the light of the knowledge we gain from the inscriptions on the David ostracon and the Eshbaal jar, I would have to say that Garfinkel has not taken sufficient account of the information provided by the Books of Samuel in the Bible. He constantly sets the data gleaned from digging up Sha`arayim out of the ruins of Khirbet Qeiyafa into a hypothetical framework of "the Kingdom of Judah under King David".
In the book In the Footsteps of King David (authors Garfinkel, Ganor, Hasel, "First published in the United Kingdom in 2018") Garfinkel has a table (27, Fig. 7) in which he contrasts his own construction of the early chronology of Israel with other models: the traditional Bible-based view has the "United Kingdom" of Israel extending from 1000 BCE over three quarters of the 10th Century BCE, and then splitting into separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The Garfinkel scheme has the Kingdom of Judah covering the whole of that same period, with the Kingdom of Israel emerging out of nowhere (a box with a question mark covers most of the 10th Century on the Israel side). This really is an unfortunate choice on Yosef Garfinkel's part.
Israel Finkelstein, supported by Alexander Fantalkin, in their "unsensational archaeological and historical interpretation" of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Tel Aviv 39, 2012, 38-63, p.58), and in his monograph The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (2013), makes a case for Khirbet Qeiyafa having been in a northern Israel polity under King Saul. This idea I am willing to accept, given that David and Eshbaal, each related in filial ways to Saul, are represented in the inscriptional evidence from the site; and since we thus have Judah and Benjamin together here, we are justified in recognizing the United Kingdom that is portrayed in the Bible, for this period; both of these prominent personages will have kingdoms of their own for a short time after the death of Saul and his other sons, but eventually the single kingdom of Israel will be restored under the rule of David of Judah.
Finkelstein, however, feels obliged to add (together with Fantalkin, p. 58) an ostensibly unsensational response to the undeniably sensational manner in which the discoveries from Qeiyafa have been published: "The idea that a single, spectacular finding can reverse the course of modern research and save the literal reading of the biblical text ... from critical scholarship" has its roots "in W. F. Albright's assault on the Wellhausen school in the early 20th century.... Khirbet Qeiyafa is the latest case in this genre of craving a cataclysmic defeat of critical modern scholarship by a miraculous archaeological discovery".
Yes, but I would have to say that those who believe that David and Goliath were real historical persons, now have confirmation in the divine oracle on the Qeiyafa Ostracon, unless this proves to be simply a scenario jotted down on an archaic notepad by the creator of the original version of this fictional story.
However that may be, here is an optimistic prediction offered to us by William F. Albright (1891-1971), in his role as the world's greatest biblical archaeologist:
"As critical study of the Bible is more and more influenced by the rich new material from the ancient Near East we shall see a steady rise in respect for the historical significance of now neglected or despised passages and details in the Old and New Testaments."
(FSAC, Doubleday 1957, 81)
This prophecy was not fulfilled in Albright's lifetime, but the inscriptions on the Qeiyafa ostracon and jar may well rehabilitate four important characters in the narrative of the Books of Samuel, namely David, Goliath, Eshbaal, and Saul as "servant of Ashtart". Deniers of the historical David must now dismiss their doubts, or else be found guilty of "hypercritical pseudo-rationalism".
(ARI, 5th edn, 1968, 96)
May I remind readers that I treat all the essays that are published on my websites as tentative explorations, and I may alter them at any time with additions or deletions or corrections.
I am sorry that I have to talk on the web to disseminate my ideas, but the fact is that I have officially passed my expiry date (b.1936) and time is running out.