King David

He accomplished a great victory over the Philistine enemies during the time of King Saul, and he defeated Goliath. He was the new king who replaced Saul, due to Saul's breaking of God's command. He was a young shepherd who had a lot of things organized and in control.

1) King David authored/compiled the book of Psalms (Talmud, Bava Batra 14b).
2) King David subdued all of the surrounding nations.
3) He secured from the prophet Nathan a promise from God that his (David's) son Solomon would build the Holy Temple.
4) He set the blueprints, with Divine inspiration, for the Holy Temple.
5) He amassed vast amounts of material for the construction of the Temple (1 Chronicles ch.29).
6) Together with Samuel, he instituted the 24 groupings of families of Kohanim and Levites (Talmud, Taanit 27a).
7) He served God all the days of his life (1 Kings 11:38); and God was with him (1 Samuel 16:18).
8) King David serves as the archetype of the effectiveness of repentance (Talmud, Avodah Zarah 4b).

Quick answer: We don't know. More detail:

You're asking one of two things:

1) Is Netanyahu from the Tribe called "David"? Answer: There's no such tribe.

2) Is Netanyahu from the same Tribe that David was from (the Tribe of Judah)? Answer: We don't know, but it remains true that most Jews are from the Tribe of Judah.

See also:

The Twelve Israelite Tribes

seven

King David had eight wives and at least ten concubines. His wives are listed in 2 Samuel 3:2-5, but the list is missing two wives - the first one, Michal, and the last one, Bathsheba. Their names in order are:

Michal

Ahinoam

Abigail

Maacah

Haggith

Abital

Eglah

Bathsheba

2 Samuel 5:13-15 says that David took more wives and concubines in Jerusalem, but doesn't list how many, only names the sons born to him there. In a later passage, we are told of ten concubines whom his son Absalom defiled, so at the very least, David had eight wives and ten concubines - probably more.

At one stage, all the Psalms were attributed to King David, but now only about 73 Psalms have superscriptions identifying him as the putative author. Even some of the Psalms still attributed to David clearly make historical references that must place them long after the tenth century BCE.

Biblical scholars say that the Psalms were all written many centuries after the time of David.

There are two possible reasons for David having been anointed as the future king of Israel:

1. In 1 Samuel, God was angry with King Saul for disobeying Samuel's instructions to utterly destroy the Amaleks and all their animals, so David was chosen and then anointed by Samuel to replace Saul as king.
   
2. The Book of Chronicles contains no mention of why God anointed David and only mentions that the elders of Israel (not Samuel) joined in anointing David king by acclamation, in gratitude for his leadership under Saul.
   

A family tree really does look like an upside-down tree, with increasing numbers of descendants with each passing generation. The New Testament makes much of Jesus' supposed descent from David, as proof that he was destined for greatness. However scholars say that at that time, some two million Jews could probably have claimed descent from David. With the passing of a further two thousand years, the proportion of Jews who could claim descent from David has probably grown, even allowing for conversions to Judaism. The only doubt is whether there ever really was a King David at all.

Another side:

According to the Bible, the Messiah (the seed) would come through the line of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; Acts 3:25; Galatians 3:16), this line would continue through David and down through both Mary and Joseph. Genealogy was one of the many sources of proof that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. Up until his coming, genealogy was very important for that reason, and records were kept very carefully (Matthew 1:1-16)(Luke 3:23-38). At the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, all genealogical records were destroyed, so, as mentioned, there may be some with a distant connection genealogically, but there is now NO proof of lineage to any of the tribes of Israel.

Another answer from our community:

Finkelstein reached this conclusion since, as defined by other archaeologists he is a revisionist who wishes to essentially 're-write history' and ignore proven evidence which stands in the museums of the world. He claims to disprove the Bible but either ignores or is ignorant of what the Bible actually says. This is how he is able to reach the conclusions he does.

The evidence is there but the shifting of the chronology makes the evidence not fit the time-frame of David and Solomon. Finkelstein knows this and so rather than re-examining the chronology, which would also incidentally synchronize better with the Hittite/Egypt chronology revision, he prefers to leave the 'chronology template' in position which makes it a mis-fit for the Biblical and other chronologies.

Another View:

Any answer that sees Finkelstein as a revisionist is really quite defensive and intellectually untenable. The very idea of archaeology is to improve and update our understanding of the past. Finkelsteins conclusions are based upon fieldwork, surveys, and research carried out by a large number of dedicated scientists who apply the scientific method and not value laden and dogmatic faith based systems to their work. The past is not yet, and will probably never be, "written in stone" and even current conclusions will be subject to change as evidence is found and studied. Any person who wishes to understand Finkelsteins work should read his publications and not the highly defensive but more importantly completely unscientific rantings of jilted ideologues for their answers.

One of the most important questions to consider is whether human history can exist without leaving footprints in the sand. Naturally, less remarkable activity and events will leave less evidence to be found in the future, while more remarkable activity and events MUST leave more evidence to be found. The lack of evidence supporting biblical activities and events that were not just remarkable but monumental to the recorded history in much of the Bible is glaring and even stunning. The kingdom of Solomon for instance was so important in the Bible and our understanding of the history of the region in as far as its scope and its description that the lack of archaeological evidence supporting its existence is a clear indication of the veracity of the information in the Bible. The same can be said for the lack of evidence within and without Egypt for the Exodus, the conquering of Canaan by Joshua, the united monarchy, the extent of King Davids kingdom, and on. Some events are quite simply too big to leave no evidence.