Evidence from the Bible and from archaeology must be interpreted independently of each other, but in the end they must be compared and interpreted.
Take Jerusalem: In view of the continuous settlement of Jerusalem from the tenth century B.C.E. until the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E. and, after a short gap, throughout the Persian and Hellenistic periods, local traditions may well have passed orally from generation to generation. And these authentic local traditions might well have reached the authors of the Biblical narratives in the later periods.
With this in mind, I would like to consider our understanding of two major monuments in ancient Jerusalem: (1) The so-called Large Stone Structure (LSS) recently excavated by Hebrew University archaeologist Eilat Mazar and identified by her as King David’s palace,a and (2) the Stepped Stone Structure (SSS) extending down the slope from the Large Stone Structure and said to be the Millo, referred to in the books of Samuel and Kings.
The Large Stone Structure and the Stepped Stone Structure are located south of Temple Mount in the oldest part of Jerusalem on a rocky spur known in ancient times and still today as the City of David. Unfortunately, excavation of the City of David is replete with difficulties. Bedrock is high, and late constructions and leveling have removed almost all traces of earlier buildings and scattered the 058 artifacts. Each new city rested its foundations on bedrock and destroyed part of what was left underneath. Archaeology can identify only fragmentary remains and at best establish their date and function; often, erosion and obliteration of much of the evidence by later operations have left fragmented structures and dispersal of the artifacts.
According to the Bible, following David’s conquest of the Jebusite “stronghold of Zion,” he renamed the place the City of David and fortified it “from the Millo inward” (2 Samuel 5:7–9). Although David fortified the area from the Millo inward, the construction of the Millo itself was assigned to his son Solomon (1 Kings 9:15, 24).
David’s fortification of the City of David presumably enclosed it with a wall, and there he built a residence, literally a “house,” for himself (2 Samuel 5:11). That he built a royal residence is also assumed in the account of his bringing the Ark into the City of David. As he did so, his wife Michal (Saul’s daughter) saw him as she looked at him out of the window (2 Samuel 6:16), presumably from their residence.
Similarly, the story of David and Bathsheba also assumes that a royal residence was constructed in a prominent place in the city (2 Samuel 11)—the same prominent place in which Absalom later lay with his father’s concubines (2 Samuel 16:22).
Half a millennium later, Nehemiah returned from the Babylonian exile and repaired the wall of the city. When it was completed, he organized a dedication procession; one group, on the east side of the city, after passing the Fountain Gate, went “straight ahead of them.” Then “they went up the steps of the City of David, on the ascent to the wall, past the House of David, and up to the Water Gate on the east” (Nehemiah 12:37).
Here too we have a reference to David’s house. As Nehemiah’s wall has been reconstructed, it 059060 passed through a new line near the eastern summit of the city.1 The House of David must therefore be sought near the Stepped Stone Structure built on the summit of the city’s northeastern slope. One of Nehemiah’s repair teams mended the wall from a point where “a tower juts out of the house of the king” (Nehemiah 3:25), still another reference to the royal residence. This tower must have been quite prominent because it is mentioned in the work of three of the repair teams (Nehemiah 3:25–27). Within this tower was apparently a court of the guard: One Palal repaired the wall from a point opposite “the tower which projects from the upper king’s house which was part of the court of the guard” (Nehemiah 3:25).2
The court of the guard, located in the king’s house, is mentioned again in Jeremiah 32:2: “Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in the court of the guard which was in the king of Judah’s house.” The court is frequently mentioned in the story cycle of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32:8–12; 33:1; 37:21; 38:6, 13, 28; 39:14–15).3
Where was the king’s house and the court of the guard?
Based on this Biblical description, I believe King David’s residence should be sought on the crest of the City of David, near the Large Stone Structure unearthed by Eilat Mazar.
The Millo, our second topic, has always been somewhat of a mystery. “Millo” is the Hebrew 061 term, but it is never translated. Its etymology may be derived from the verb ml’, to “fill up.” I believe that Millo, a structure built of a fill of stones and earth, is the Biblical name of the Stepped Stone Structure.
This is indicated by an enigmatic Biblical passage involving King Joash (also Jehoash) of Judah who was assassinated by a conspiracy of his servants. They did the dirty deed “in the House of Millo which goes down to Silla” (2 Kings 12:21; 12:20 in English). The House of Millo is a designation of the royal residence located on top of the Millo. This account indicates that Joash was assassinated in his palace (compare 2 Samuel 4:5, 7; 1 Kings 16:18). Indeed, according to 2 Chronicles 24:25 Joash’s servants “slew him on his bed.”
That this was the royal residence tends to be confirmed by the fact that two bullae (seal impressions) of Judahite officials mentioned in the Bible (in Jeremiah 37:3; 38:1)—Gedaliah son of Pashhur and Jehucal son of Shelemiah son of Shobai—were discovered in excavations near the Large Stone Structure, near the place where the two officials must have officiated.
It thus appears that the palace built by King David played a central role in the economic and administrative life of Jerusalem at least until the time of Joash (c. 841–801) and even later. Somewhat amazingly, this fact has been ignored in studies of First Temple Jerusalem. The Large Stone Structure, which Eilat Mazar unearthed and identified as the residence of King David, is indeed a suitable candidate for this building, or more accurately, for its northeastern wing. A large amount of pottery from the Iron Age and Persian periods (Nehemiah’s time) was also unearthed in and near the edifice, indicating continuity of settlement in the area.b4 Unfortunately, the erosion of the floors of the building and the deplorable state of its preservation prevents the verification of her attractive suggestion of a tenth-century date for its foundation.
One other Biblical reference should be mentioned: According to the Bible, Solomon built his own palace at the time he constructed the Temple (1 Kings 7:1). Of course archaeological access to the Temple Mount is not feasible. In the absence of any archaeological evidence, it is my view that the Temple Solomon built on the Temple Mount was a modest shrine that developed gradually, stage by stage, over many generations, until it became the major Temple of the kingdom.5 As for Solomon’s residence adjacent to the Temple, the reality is that he had two royal residences: one on the Temple Mount and the other in the City of David. This naturally raises the question of their relation. Tentatively, I suggest that the residence in the City of David was the earlier residence and was more important in the early stage of the Judahite monarchy. The residence on the Temple Mount was initially a modest building, originally perhaps a ceremonial palace erected near the shrine that developed gradually over time.c Since the earlier residence initially built by King David was built in a densely inhabited area which placed limitations on its growth, the center gradually shifted to the Temple Mount, which became the seat of the royal palace and the site of the central Temple of the kingdom.6
Evidence from the Bible and from archaeology must be interpreted independently of each other, but in the end they must be compared and interpreted.
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
For David Ussishkin’s view that Solomon’s palace was north, rather than south, of the Temple, see “Where Was Solomon’s Palace?” in “Jerusalem Roundup,” BAR 37:02.
Endnotes
1.
Kathleen M. Kenyon, Digging up Jerusalem (London: Benn Ltd., 1974), pp. 181–187; Yigal Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David I, 1978–1982, Interim Report of the First Five Seasons, Qedem 19 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University, 1984), p. 29; Hugh G.M. Williamson, “Nehemiah’s Walls Revisited,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 116 (1977), p. 82; Hugh G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah , WBC 16 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), pp. 200, 208; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah—A Commentary, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1989), pp. 231–232, 237; Hanan Eshel, “Jerusalem under Persian Rule: The City’s Layout and the Historic Background,” in Shmuel Ahituv and Amihai Mazar, eds., The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2000), p. 339 [Hebrew].
2.
While almost all English translations say “court of the guard,” the NJPS has “prison compound,” no doubt based on the reference in Jeremiah 32:2 as the place where the prophet was imprisoned.
3.
For the court of the guard, see Gary A. Herion, “Guard, Court of the,” Anchor Bible Dictionary 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1099a.
4.
For the pottery unearthed in the excavations of the site, see Eilat Mazar, Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005 at the Visitors Center Area (Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2007); Eilat Mazar, The Palace of King David: Excavations at the Summit of the City of David, Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005–2007 (Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2009).
5.
For the dependence of the original Solomonic shrine on the palace and its gradual growth until it became the state temple, see David Ussishkin, “The Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the First Temple Period: An Archaeologist’s View,” in J. David Schloen, ed., Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), pp. 473–483; André Lemaire, “The Evolution of the Eighth-Century B.C.E. Jerusalem Temple,” in Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman, eds., The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 195–202, with earlier literature on p. 195.
6.
This article is an abbreviated and partial account of a much longer paper in Biblica 93 (2012), pp. 21–42, titled “Biblical and Historical Jerusalem in the Tenth and Fifth-Fourth Centuries B.C.E.” See also Nadav Na’aman, “Five Notes on Jerusalem in the First and Second Temple Periods,” Tel Aviv 39 (2012), p. 93.
