Of course David existed, and it seems we run into a wee bit of apologetics to escape this conclusion here from one of the few remaining that claim he didn't really exist at all after the discoveries at Tel Dan and with the Mesha Stele. Lester Grabbe, just a few years ago, wrote that the Tel Dan Inscription “is now widely regarded (a) as genuine and (b) as referring to the Davidic dynasty and the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus” (Ahab Agonistes pg. 333).
That David means "the beloved" in the inscription might escape into the realm of real possibility if the inscription only said "David" and nothing else, but in reality, the inscription is filled with a full account of many kings and the kingdom and whatnot. The full translation is as follows;
1. [ ]...[...] and cut [...]
2. [...] my father went up [against him when h]e fought at [...]
3. and my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors (viz. became sick and died)]. And the king of I[s-]
4. rael entered previously in my father's land, [and] Hadad made me king,
5. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from the seven [...-]
6. s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed th[ousands of cha-]
7. riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son [of Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]
9. g of the House of David, and I set [their towns into ruins and turned ]
10. their land into [desolation ]
11. other [... and Jehu ru-]
12. led over Is[rael and I laid]
13. siege upon [ ]
Clearly several kings are named, which makes it all the more probable that the "dwd" mentioned later on is part of the same royal context and is referring to yet another king. Thompson, of course, would just love to translate away the problem. The Mesha Stele can also clearly be read as "David" - and so Thompson's attempt to use this as an established analogy to "beloved" falls flat. Clearly, the biblical references to the beloved David play reference to the linguistic origins of the name, but practically all Hebrew names have linguistic origins that can't actually just be read into every text that mentions the name.
The claims that there's really no archaeology in the 10th century BC providing any backdrop to David's kingdom is just outdated given a number of discoveries since the 21st century. Consider Eilat Mazar's discoveries of the enormous stepped stone and large stone structures, Yosef Garfinkel's excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa (which is either an Israelite or Judahite site), and Erez Ben-Yosef's 2017 findings of an industrial level copper production being produced at the Timna Valley which very well may (certainly according to the biblical accounts) have been under Judahite occupation at the time. There's also a possible excavation of a major palatial building from the 10th century BC made in 2016 (though there's still a small chance it could be 9th century):
Of course David existed, and it seems we run into a wee bit of apologetics to escape this conclusion here from one of the few remaining that claim he didn't really exist at all after the discoveries at Tel Dan and with the Mesha Stele. Lester Grabbe, just a few years ago, wrote that the Tel Dan Inscription “is now widely regarded (a) as genuine and (b) as referring to the Davidic dynasty and the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus” (Ahab Agonistes pg. 333).
That David means "the beloved" in the inscription might escape into the realm of real possibility if the inscription only said "David" and nothing else, but in reality, the inscription is filled with a full account of many kings and the kingdom and whatnot. The full translation is as follows;
1. [ ]...[...] and cut [...]
2. [...] my father went up [against him when h]e fought at [...]
3. and my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors (viz. became sick and died)]. And the king of I[s-]
4. rael entered previously in my father's land, [and] Hadad made me king,
5. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from the seven [...-]
6. s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed th[ousands of cha-]
7. riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son [of Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]
9. g of the House of David, and I set [their towns into ruins and turned ]
10. their land into [desolation ]
11. other [... and Jehu ru-]
12. led over Is[rael and I laid]
13. siege upon [ ]
Clearly several kings are named, which makes it all the more probable that the "dwd" mentioned later on is part of the same royal context and is referring to yet another king. Thompson, of course, would just love to translate away the problem. The Mesha Stele can also clearly be read as "David" - and so Thompson's attempt to use this as an established analogy to "beloved" falls flat. Clearly, the biblical references to the beloved David play reference to the linguistic origins of the name, but practically all Hebrew names have linguistic origins that can't actually just be read into every text that mentions the name.
The claims that there's really no archaeology in the 10th century BC providing any backdrop to David's kingdom is just outdated given a number of discoveries since the 21st century. Consider Eilat Mazar's discoveries of the enormous stepped stone and large stone structures, Yosef Garfinkel's excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa (which is either an Israelite or Judahite site), and Erez Ben-Yosef's 2017 findings of an industrial level copper production being produced at the Timna Valley which very well may (certainly according to the biblical accounts) have been under Judahite occupation at the time. There's also a possible excavation of a major palatial building from the 10th century BC made in 2016 (though there's still a small chance it could be 9th century):
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/king-solomon-era-palace-found-in-bi…