Central to the identification of the Large Stone Structure as the palace of King David is its dating to around 1000 b.c.e. This is within the early part of David’s 40-year reign, which, using biblical and secular chronologies, can be dated to around 1010–970.
This dating of the Large Stone Structure squares nicely with the historical account recorded in 2 Samuel 5: David conquered Jerusalem 7½ years into his reign, and immediately following this, the Bible describes Hiram building a palace for him (verses 4-12).
But for some, this early dating of the Large Stone Structure disqualifies it as the palace mentioned in 2 Samuel 5. This is due to a particular chronological issue. Dr. Eilat Mazar hinted at it in her 2009 preliminary City of David excavation report: “The Bible recounts that Hiram, King of Tyre, built David his palace (2 Samuel 5:11). Hiram assumed the throne in 979 b.c.e., at the earliest, and David ruled until 965 b.c.e. [following a slightly later chronology] (Tadmor, 1962, page 299). Therefore, the construction of the palace could not have commenced prior to the last decade of David’s reign in Jerusalem” (The Palace of King David: Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005–2007).
At the time, Mazar believed that the Large Stone Structure must have been built toward the end of David’s reign. Yet in the decade following her 2009 publication, further investigation and research led Dr. Mazar to realize that the finds at the site should be dated to on or around 1000 b.c.e.—either at the very end of the 11th century or right at the start of the 10th century.
While this date fits well with the chronological flow of 2 Samuel 5, it appeared too early for the reign of King Hiram. This caused some to contend that the Large Stone Structure could not have been David’s palace built by Hiram. How could King Hiram have built a palace more than 20 years before he assumed the throne?
The primary question here is, how do we know when King Hiram of Tyre ruled? And more importantly, can this date be trusted?
Enter Josephus
Josephus, the late first-century c.e. Jewish historian, wrote in his lengthy treatise Antiquities of the Jews: “Now that year on which the temple began to be built was already the 11th year of the reign of Hiram …” (8.3.1). This date is somewhat different from the one he gave in Against Apion: “Since then the temple was built at Jerusalem in the 12th year of the reign of Hiram …” (1.18). 1 Kings 6:1 informs us that the temple began to be built in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign.
These passages indicate that King Hiram’s reign overlapped with only the last seven to eight years of King David’s reign. No matter what specific date is given for David, Solomon or Hiram, this Tyrian king could only have built a palace for David within the final decade of the Israelite king’s 33-year reign from Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:5; 1 Kings 2:11; 1 Chronicles 3:4; 29:27).
For roughly the past half century of biblical scholarship, the fairly standard interpretation of these scriptures is that—despite the impression given by the Bible that King David’s palace was built near the beginning of his reign—it must have actually been built near the end. Therefore, 2 Samuel 5 must not represent a sequential account of events.
But breaking apart 2 Samuel 5:11-12 to fit with Josephus’s Hiram chronology begins a chain reaction of irreconcilable scriptural difficulties.
‘House of Cedar’
Note that the house Hiram built for David was constructed of cedar (2 Samuel 5:11). Famously, the territory of Lebanon—Phoenicia of old—had a virtual monopoly on cedar. Tyrian kings were sought from abroad to construct palaces and temples of cedar. Hiram also supplied cedar for the building of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 5:22), his palace and his palatial “house of the forest of Lebanon” (1 Kings 7:2).
Despite some theories of a nonchronological layout for all the chapters from 2 Samuel 5 to 10, there is a general flow: Chapter 5 describes David’s establishment as king in Jerusalem; chapter 6 describes David bringing the ark of the covenant into the city, followed by his separation from his first wife; and chapter 7 describes David’s plan to build a temple for the ark. “And it came to pass, when the king [David] dwelt in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies round about, that the king said unto Nathan the prophet: ‘See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains’” (verses 1-2). King David makes this remark while living within his cedar palace.
The chapter proceeds to describe God’s words to David through the Prophet Nathan: “When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name …” (verses 12-13; see also Psalm 89:31-38). This was, of course, the promise of David’s future son Solomon. This passage implies that King David was already living in his cedar house and that Solomon was not yet born.
How old was Solomon when he began to reign, four years into which Hiram aided him in building the temple? Unfortunately, we are not given the exact age. But a pairing of 1 Kings 11:42-43 and 1 Kings 14:21 reveals that when Solomon assumed the throne, he already had a 1-year-old son, Rehoboam.
This means that between God’s promise to David of his future son Solomon in 2 Samuel 7 (when the king resided in his cedar palace) to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (who started his reign with a 1-year-old child), we logically have a period of at least 25 years, and likely even longer.
Recall what Josephus wrote: “Now that year on which the temple began to be built [Solomon’s fourth year] was already the 11th year of the reign of Hiram.”
Archaeological associations aside, the Bible and Josephus are in clear contradiction—therefore, a harmonizing of all accounts, together with discoveries from the Large Stone Structure, could never have worked. Mazar’s discoveries only highlighted an existing chronological conundrum. Josephus’s Hiram, biblically, could never have built David’s palace. The dates cannot fit, no matter how hard we try to deconstruct the chronological framework of 2 Samuel 5-10.
Contradictions
This is not the only chronological contradiction between Josephus and the Bible and not the only contradiction directly relating to Solomon and Hiram.
Take the following example: The Bible credits Solomon with a 40-year reign (1 Kings 11:42; 2 Chronicles 9:30). In the very next passage of Antiquities, following the discourse on Hiram, Josephus attributes to Solomon a reign of 80 years (8.7.8).
1 Kings 6:1 states that Solomon began building the temple, with Hiram’s assistance, 480 years after the Exodus. In Antiquities, Josephus contradicts not only this, but also himself, and gives this period as 592 years (8.3.1). In Against Apion, he says it was 612 years (2.2).
Recall too Josephus’s contradictory statements in relation to the year Hiram began building the temple. In Antiquities (8.3.1), construction began in Hiram’s 11th year. In Against Apion (1.18), it began in Hiram’s 12th year. This is a “minor slip,” wrote scholar Lowell Handy, “but one worth noting.”
Should we accept Josephus’s chronological information for Hiram as more accurate and accept that King David’s palace was constructed in the mid-10th century b.c.e., thus disqualifying the identification of the Large Stone Structure as King David’s palace and further breaking apart the chronological flow of 2 Samuel 5? Or is the biblical text, which puts construction of the palace at the end of the 11th century, correct?
Is Josephus an infallible source of Phoenician history?
When it comes to Phoenician chronology in particular, there is significant wariness among scholars toward Josephus’s account.
Chronological Malaise
Lowell Handy analyzes Josephus’s Phoenician chronologies in his book Phoenicians in the Tenth Century B.C.E. He writes that “while the names of the rulers have generally been accepted as reflecting accurate records of kings of Tyre, the dates provided for the length of their lives and reigns have serious problems, [and] these have tended to be ‘corrected’ before being used.”
Josephus’s Against Apion, for example, lists in detail the individual regnal lengths of Phoenician rulers from Hiram to the construction of Carthage. He then concluded this list by stating that there was a sum total of 155 years across this period, with 143 years from the building of the temple to the building of Carthage. When we add up the regnal information Josephus gave, however, we arrive at a period of only 137 years.
“Hiram, if the numbers in Josephus were correct (which they are probably not), came to the throne at the age of circa 19 and reigned for 34 years,” writes Handy. “The treaties between David and Solomon [with Hiram] … depend on a chronology that cannot be reconstructed with any certainty.”
Historian David Henige’s book Historical Evidence and Argument is a lengthy treatise on what constitutes “evidence” and the pitfalls for historians in determining historical reliability. Chapter 5 of his book uses Josephus’s Tyrian chronology as a case in point. He points out various contradictions in Josephus’s regnal numbers, including some of their ridiculous implications (for example, Tyrian King Metten becoming a father at 11; Ithobaal becoming a father at 9). Henige highlights some of the hair-pulling attempts to harmonize the lists, as well as related problematic archaeological discoveries.
“The modern historian’s dilemma is to wonder whether to attribute the peculiarities in Josephus’s account of Tyrian royal chronology to Josephus himself, to the sources he named, or to some anonymous post-Josephan scribe/s,” Henige writes. “In short, Josephus stands virtually alone, forcing those who wish to fill in Tyrian history to believe that both he and his sources were unimpeachable …. [T]he king list as Josephus passed it down, and as modern historians have grasped it, is as much parody as history.” Clearly there are flaws in Josephus’s chronology. He is not an infallible source.
In Sum
Putting absolute faith in the chronology provided by Josephus’s Tyrian king list—particularly as it relates to Hiram and the subsequent attempted synchronization with Solomon’s reign—would be a mistake. The data contradicts material discoveries, for one. It repeatedly contradicts itself. And it directly contradicts the biblical account. The reason for such internal contradiction remains speculative, as mentioned by Henige. But as it is, attempts to cut-and-paste the biblical account to fit with it are misguided.
The Bible implies that King Hiram was on the scene contemporaneously throughout most, if not all, of King David’s reign. And as we have seen, Josephus’s flawed Tyrian chronology is far too suspect to call that into question.
This brings us back to Dr. Mazar’s Large Stone Structure and a comparison of the archaeological data with 2 Samuel 5. The early date for the Large Stone Structure does not fit with Josephus’s chronology. But it does fit tidily with that implicit in the Bible: a palace structure built early in the reign of King David, just after he became king of all Israel and conquered Jerusalem.
After all, as 2 Samuel 5:11-12 state (in a closed-paragraph Hebrew section, meaning these two verses are directly connected): “And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar-trees, and carpenters, and masons; and they built David a house. And David perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel, and that He had exalted his kingdom for His people Israel’s sake.”
Did David only realize that God had made him king over Israel at the end of his reign, after Hiram constructed his palace?
Of course not. David’s palace was constructed at, or near, the beginning of his reign from Jerusalem.
