King David\'s palace?

[Jona Lendering]

Many people excavate specifically to find evidence that supports Biblical accounts.

Well, from what I've seen anyway, just as many excavate specifically to DISprove biblical accounts. Should we likewise use discretion when these excavations concern prominent OT figures?

In this case, dear Dave, I think we're justified to be skeptical. Here is the harvest of two weeks archaeology from Israel.

• The legionary base of VI Ferrata was identified - except that it had already been identified with certainty six years ago.
  
• The palace of David - except that it might have been Canaanite or Philistine as well.
  
• The house of Elisa - yes, a sherd that might be read Elisa. But might as well be read differently. The house is a bit too young and I think there were more Elisa's (although the name is rare).
  
• Evidence for the Roman copy of the treaty between Rome and the Maccabees - except that it's almost certainly a Medieval forgery
  

In Israel, the stakes are higher than anywhere else. But the exaggerated reports only mean that retractions are necessary, which makes normal science/scholarship look as if it is trying to disprove the Bible. It isn't, but the evidence is assymmetrical, and if the Israeli archaeologists stopped making exaggerated claims, we could finally improve our knowledge.

The main excavation to keep in mind, at the moment, is Megiddo, where organic material has been found that may soon finally settle the debate about the Iron I / Iron IIa border. After that, we can finally proceed to something better.