Select Page

Have archaeologists discovered the tomb of King David?

by | Nov 18, 2021 | Evidence and Answers, Apologetics

According to the Old Testament, King David was buried within the “city of David,” as were many kings of Judah after him. Since at least the 19th century, archaeologists and scholars have sought and debated the location of these early royal tombs. Many today assume that these burial sites were destroyed during the many stages of building and development as Jerusalem grew from a small, iron-age settlement into a large modern city. Still, others argue that neither David nor his tomb ever existed at all. However, one of the original excavators of this part of Jerusalem unearthed a set of artificial caves or tunnel-like structures that he identified as the tombs of the house of David. Could he have been right all along? Some recent scholars think so, and the evidence is worth examining.

Your tour guide got it wrong

Some readers who have visited Israel likely toured a popular site on mount Zion in Israel which is touted as the burial site of King David and maintained as a place of Jewish worship. This site is not a plausible candidate for the real tomb of David and is based on a much later tradition, as one scholar notes:

Late traditional Jewish site for David's tomb“most pilgrims associate the burial place of King David at a site located on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem site that tourists are shown is a late Byzantine or early Islamic period site. An Arab geographer in 985 CE states that the burial place is on Mount Zion. The medieval traveler, Benjamin of Tudela places it on Mount Zion, but according to his account it was only ‘rediscovered’ in the twelfth century after a church on Mount Zion collapsed and in the rebuilding efforts, a burial cave was found that contained the legendary treasures associated with his burial.” 1

The fact is that, while the Bible does not pinpoint for us exactly where the tomb of David is, it gives us enough data to know that this legendary treasure cave of the middle ages is in the wrong place.

Where were the tombs? The biblical data

The Bible is clear that David was buried somewhere inside the Jerusalem of his day, or the “city of David.”

“Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David,” (1 Kings 2:10).

Due to considerations of purity, the dead were normally buried outside the city walls, but ancient kings were often given special treatment even in burial, and the house of David is no exception. Of his son, Solomon, we read:

“And Solomon slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of his father David, and his son Rehoboam reigned in his place,” (1 Kings 11:43).

And, in turn, of Rehoboam:

“And Rehoboam slept with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonitess. And Abijam his son became king in his place,” (1 Kings 14:31).

And on it goes for several generations before the later kings seem to have been buried in a different location, such as Manassah and his son Amon who were buried “in the garden of Uzza” (2 Kings 21:18, 21:26, 2 Chronicles 33:20). Based on these data, we ought to expect to find a collection of tombs for the earliest kings of Judah somewhere in the “city of David,” a roughly 10-acre area south of the temple mount which represents the earliest portion of Jerusalem.

This narrows the search down a great deal, but the Bible gives us a few more helpful details to zero us in even further. After the Babylonian exile, when the Jews were rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem, we read:

“After him Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, official of half the district of Beth-zur, made repairs as far as a point opposite the tombs of David, and as far as the artificial pool and the house of the mighty men,” (Nehemiah 3:16).

Such details provide clues as to just where in the old city we might expect to find the tombs. So what did archaeologists find when they began to look there?

Raymond Weill’s search for David’s tomb

In 1913, a French-Jewish scholar named Raymond Weill was commissioned to excavate in the City of David, and specifically the estimated site of the royal tombs. Weill utilized the biblical data summarized above to mark out a region in which to dig. He also noted what previous scholars had observed, that the water channel made in the days of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:20) takes “an unusually large loop” 2 in its route as if to avoid or go around something. Weill favored the “hypothesis of Clermont-Ganneau” (previous scholars working in the area) that Hezekiah’s tunnel may have had to loop around the site of the royal tombs.3 Finding that the region indicated by 1 Kings and Nehemiah roughly matched the area avoided by the water channel, Weill selected this site and the wider surrounding area to commence his dig.

Among his discoveries, Weill found a series of eight structures that he interpreted to be tombs (labeled T1 through T8).4 Of these, the most significant were T1, T2, and T3:

T1 and T2 at the Weill excavation site“The most magnificent of these tombs is T1. It is a kind of long tunnel or artificially excavated cave 52-½ feet long, over 8 feet wide and over 13 feet high at the front, lowering to over 6 feet at the back. The original appearance of the entrance is difficult to tell because it was hacked away long ago, along with much of one side. But at the back wall is a carefully cut depression for a body or perhaps a sarcophagus or coffin. The depression measures 4 feet wide and over 6 feet long…Further north, T3 appears to be a smaller version of T1. T2 was another long cave, but almost nothing remained of it.”5

These structures (and the surrounding area) were in bad shape, missing entire portions. The Romans had dug up the whole region during the reign of Hadrian in the Second Century to use the stone in remaking Jerusalem into the Greco-Roman city of Aelia Capitolina,6 and much was lost or damaged in the process. Still, located precisely where the Biblical text indicated they would be, Weill concluded that these were what was left of the royal tombs of the house of David.

Critical doubt

These man-made, cave-like structures are rather unique. Later scholars, highly skeptical of Weill’s hypothesis, nevertheless have difficulty determining just what they are. As famed archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon explains regarding the two most prominent of them:

“The particular cuttings revealed by Weill were certainly unusual, consisting of two rock-cut tunnels side by side. They are not like any observed cisterns, though the plaster that covers the rock shows that they were at some stage used as cisterns. They are also not like any known tombs of the period. My own view is that there is absolutely no evidence that they were the much-searched-for Royal Tombs, and that they were probably cisterns.”7

She admits in the same paragraph that her position is “theory only. It is as unsupported by evidence as Weill’s identification of the tunnels as the Royal Tombs.” Others have guessed that they were some kind of storage rooms or even ancient wine cellars. What these scholars all agree on, however, is that, whatever the tunnels are, they are not the tombs of early Davidic kings. They arrive at this through three basic propositions:

  1. The structures are probably not tombs
  2. Even if they are tombs, they are not old enough to be David’s
  3. Even if they were tombs and old enough, they are too plain to be royal tombs

They thus conclude that Weill simply saw what he wanted to see, but was sadly mistaken. Some more recent scholars, however, have begun to question these claims, as well as the conclusion to which they lead. Could Weill have been right all along? Were the tombs of the house of David actually discovered over a hundred years ago?

Weill and David’s tomb: A fair look

Let’s look at what we know. The biblical literature said that the tombs of David and some of his early royal descendants were made within the city of David. Further, Nehemiah gave some indication of in what part of the city they were located. More circumstantially, Hezekiah’s tunnel was dug in an unnecessarily long and roundabout loop, seemingly to go around something in the very same place that Nehemiah would lead us to suspect the royal tombs would be. Raymond Weill followed this data, excavating that spot and finding a series of man-made caves or tunnels that don’t precisely match the design of any known tomb, cistern, cellar, or other work of ancient architecture, but that have certain features (such as the “carefully cut depression” in the back) that can be interpreted (and are by some) as a place designed for a body or coffin to lay.The burial or coffin platform in the back of T1

Kenyon claims that there is “absolutely no evidence” that these are the Davidic royal tombs. However, given that they contain features that resemble those of tombs and have no obvious alternative function or origin, the very fact that they are located exactly where the ancient sources say the tombs of the house of David would be is evidence. If you dig up a unique structure and you are not sure what it is, looking at ancient literature to find out what early records show was built there is a good, scholarly approach to solving the mystery. That Weill looked at the ancient literature first and dug up the structure afterward doesn’t alter the validity of that evidence.

Still, is there any answer to the three critical claims that seem to rule out these being Davidic tombs? Yes, indeed there is. The first claim is that the tunnels are not tombs. But the only argument to support this is that they don’t look like other ancient tombs. But there are several problems with this, not the least of which is that they don’t look like other ancient anything. Kenyon admits that they don’t look like other ancient cisterns but concludes that they are probably cisterns. Others make them cellars, though they don’t look like any other ancient cellars. The point is, they have to be something. Despite their unusual appearance, people made them for some purpose. Whatever they are, they are a unique version of that. If the Israelites, who did not previously have kings and had no custom of royal architecture, began to make the tombs of their first real royal dynasty, might they make something somewhat unique? Thus, these tunnels having an unusual design is not inconsistent with their being tombs and is, in fact, perfectly consistent with their being early royal tombs.

The second claim is that, even if they are tombs, they are not old enough to be the tombs of David, Solomon, or the like. This stems from a very similar argument as the previous point, namely, that they do not resemble other Israelite tombs of the tenth-century BC. But, beyond the point already made that one might expect a certain uniqueness for the Davidic tomb design, there is actually a more fundamental flaw in this argument, as one scholar explains:

“among the hundreds of First and Second Temple tombs in Jerusalem, not a single one can be dated to the tenth century B.C.E. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a single tenth-century Israelite tomb anywhere. We really don’t know what a tenth-century Israelite tomb looked like. So we can’t reject—or support—T1 as a tenth-century Israelite tomb on stylistic grounds.”8

In other words, we cannot say whether or not Weill’s tunnels look like tenth-century Israelite tombs for the simple reason that we do not know for sure what tenth-century Israelite tombs looked like! Thus, there really is no argument here.

The final point is that these tombs are too simple to be the tombs of royalty. After all, there are more elaborate and ornate Jewish tombs in the region. Why would kings be buried in inferior tombs! The fact is, however, that the more beautiful and elaborate tombs used in this comparison are from the 8th century and later, at least 200 years after the time of David. This is like saying that Thomas Jefferson could not have lived in an inferior presidential residence in 1809 to the White House used by Barack Obama in 2009. Indeed, if we look at the royal tombs of the surrounding nations in David’s day (cultures with longer traditions of royal burial), we find that the designs of the tombs were similarly simple. The distinctive glory of kings in that day was primarily found in the treasures placed in the tomb rather than the layout of the structure. We can often only tell a tomb belonged to a king because it was filled with wealth (or located somewhere special, like within or beside a royal palace.) Indeed, Comparing Weill’s tombs to other royal and aristocratic tombs of neighboring cultures in the same or previous era, Dr. Jeffery Zorn of Cornell University notes:

“The most striking feature of these earlier royal and elite tombs is their relative simplicity. These tombs, in fact, are so simple that they would not likely have been recognized as royal tombs, save for their contents and architectural contexts.”9

After giving numerous examples, Zorn continues:

“The archaeological remains from Ebla, Ugarit, Byblos and Hazor thus show that royal/elite tombs of the Bronze Age into the early part of the Iron Age need not be extravagant or contain the elaborate architectural embellishments of late Iron Age Judahite tombs. On the contrary, in many respects they resemble Weill’s tombs. Without their contents and architectural contexts, none of these other tombs would be judged to be elite/royal tombs if compared to the fine late Judahite tombs that are customarily used to discredit T1 and T2 as tombs.”10

Thus, while the particular design of the tunnels Weill unearthed is unique, they fit nicely into the wider tradition of near-eastern royal and aristocratic tombs in David’s era. Contrary to the critics’ claims, what facts we have point toward rather than away from the idea that these are the tombs of David and the early kings of Judah. This, combined with the fact that they are located exactly where the Bible indicates the Davidic tombs we made, puts us on very reasonable ground to conclude that Weill was correct all along!

Some summary thoughts

The best explanation for these unusual tomb-like structures in this particular place is that they are, indeed, the tombs of the early Jewish kings. The Bible is true in all of its details, even in the minutia of where the bodies of certain men were laid. The words of scripture can guide the archaeologist’s spade to monumental discoveries, and can guide each one of us to things far greater if we will take God plainly at His word.

David’s tomb: A devotional takeaway

A thousand years after David’s burial, Peter preached to the crowd in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost:

“Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day,” (Acts 2:29).

The tomb of David offers testimony not only that David lived but also that he died and decayed like any man. Today, even his bones are now dust, but that cavern sepulcher still stands to illustrate Peter’s point. He then alludes to David’s words:

“For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay,” (Psalm 16:10).

Peter notes that this was not literally true of David himself. David’s tomb testifies to that. But rather:

“And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses,” (Acts 2:30-32).

David’s tomb reminds us that David lived and died, but it also reminds us that David foretold the one who would rise triumphantly from a tomb never to die again! The long-prophesied offspring of David who fulfills God’s promises and brings life and truth to all nations. Of course, we don’t need David’s tomb to prove these things to be true. But, just as in Peter’s day, it stands as a helpful witness to that truth!11

References

References
1 Richard A. Freund, Digging Through the Bible (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009) 121
2 Raymond Weill’s excavation report, as translated in Hershal Shanks, City of David: Revisiting Early Excavations, English Translations of Reports by Ramond Weill and L.H. Vincent (Biblical Archaeological Society, 2004) 7
3 Ibid, 8
4 During a second excavation, a ninth tomb (T9) was uncovered, but will not be relevant to our discussion here.
5 Hershel Shanks, Is This King David’s Tomb?(Biblical Archaeology Review 21:1, January/February 1995)
6 Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jerusalem (Praeger Publishers, 1974) 31
7 Ibid, 32
8 Hershel Shanks, Is This King David’s Tomb?(Biblical Archaeology Review 21:1, January/February 1995)
9 Jeffery R. Zorn, “Is T1 David’s Tomb?” (Biblical Archaeology Review 38:6, November/December 2012) 51
10 Ibid, 78
11 These final reflections were inspired by the brief chapter on David’s tomb in Joel Kramer’s book “Where God Came Down: The Archaeological Evidence,” which I highly recommend.

SUPPORT CARM

Thank you for your interest in supporting CARM. We greatly appreciate your consideration!

SCHOOLS USER LOGIN

If you have any issues, please call the office at 385-246-1048 or email us at [email protected].

MATT SLICK LIVE RADIO

Call in with your questions at:

877-207-2276

3-4 p.m. PST; 4-5 p.m. MST;
6-7 p.m. EST

You May Also Like…