An Israeli archaeologist is convinced that he has located the “citadel of David” in a dig in East Jerusalem. If so, he has found the fortifications of the Jebusite city that King David and his army took from the Jebusites, as recorded in II Samuel 5:6-11.

In favor of this site being the correct location of the one described in II Samuel 5 is the fact that these fortifications have been discovered in connection with a water spring which figures prominently in the story of how King David’s army, led by Joab, infiltrated the Jebusite city and conquered it without a direct assault on its walls. The King James Version of this story uses the generic term “gutter” in II Samuel 5:8 while the Revised Standard Version uses the term “water shaft” which fits the biblical narrative more understandably. Most interestingly, the fortifications discovered featured 21 feet thick walls and were described as the largest city walls in the Holy Land until the time of King Herod. These massive walls would have given cause for the Jebusites to think their city was impregnable, as the II Samuel account relates. Indeed, the invading Israelites under Joshua were unable to drive out the Jebusites from their fortress (Judges 1:21), and the fact that the Jebusite city walls were too strong for Joshua’s forces to overcome supports the belief that this massive fortification found in Jerusalem is, indeed, the city wall of the Jebusite fortress. If the massive Israelite army invading the Holy Land under Joshua was unable to break through the walls of the Jebusite fortress, it makes sense that the Jebusite city had to have truly massive walls defending it, and the discovered ancient city walls fit that kind of description.

However, as is the case with virtually all matters involving biblical archaeology, there are critics regarding these assertions, and their comments are discussed in the links below as well. Personally, I think there is a good case that these are the discovered walls of the Jebusite fortress that Joab captured via a stratagem in the name of King David. Their massive size is a strong argument in favor of that conclusion.

The links below present the same information, but I have included both of them as a confirmation that this story has been publicized by at least one source in the mainstream media.