Previous article:Who Wrote the Gospels?
Posted on Dec 26, 2025 by Mike LeDuke
The Bible and Archaeology
In the 1980s, most scholars believed King David was a myth. He was sort of like Hercules or King Arthur — a mythical figure connected to the origin of a group of people, but not connected to any kind of actual historical truth. Indeed, in 1980, Charles Huttar, a scholar from Hope College, wrote “Even a sporadic churchgoer could hardly have escaped the myth of David. If his eye strayed to the stained-glass windows, he might see David in his role as an ancestor of Christ, in the Jesse Tree. If he looked at the statuary, there was David as a prophet, king, or foretype of Christ. But more dramatic than either of these was the story of David’s sin and repentance.” David was simply another myth; his stories were interesting, but they obviously never actually happened.
That is, until 1993.
In 1993, a team led by archaeologist Avraham Biran found what has become known as the “Tel Dan inscription.” The inscription describes the conquests of Hazael, a Biblical king who ruled over Aram. In it, Hazael states that he defeated the “house of David.” In analyzing this inscription, scholars recognized that they had long been wrong about David. Clearly, if he had descendants, he must have existed.
In the 2000s, archaeologist Eliat Mazar made a further discovery. She found a palace in Jerusalem, one that she believed was David’s. While the scholarly community still argues over whether or not it is specifically David’s palace, almost all acknowledge that it must be the palace of the kings of Judah. In other words, Judah existed as a political entity, and the Biblical kings of that nation ruled from that palace (in fact, one of Hezekiah’s seals has been found nearby, along with the seals of other government officials).
In other words, as time has gone on, despite scholars attempting to disprove the record, discoveries have continuously verified the record. Though at times, various discoveries seem to contradict the Biblical text, with a high-profile case being the city of Jericho, often these “contradictory” discoveries depend highly on interpretation and, as is the case with Jericho today, end up supporting the record.
Thus, archaeology doesn’t always harmonize with the Bible. But as finds are analyzed further and more is discovered, we see further and further that the Biblical record meshes with the historical record. Once again, the Bible isn’t a book of myths. In many cases, it’s stories contain historically verified characters and sub-characters, which is significantly more than can be said about stories of Hercules or King Arthur.
The biblical characters are real. The stories are real. And thus, the text is true.
Once again, we have strong reasons to believe.
—Jason Hensley PhD
