Oldest(?) Quran fragments found in Birmingham.

[Malthus]

Well, there was also the fact that, if histories are to be trusted, he was widely considered to rule like a tyrant, and to display definite "Ivan the Terrible" characteristics - having his kids and wife murdered, that sort of thing - and unlike Russians ( ), Judeans evidently didn't appreciate it.

It is telling that Herod is assigned the "massacre of the innocents" baby-killing role in the NT - clearly legendary, but the sort of legend his actual (alleged) character made plausible.

I am not sure the historical plausibility matters, really. The "massacre of the innocents" is just a variant of a classic archetype of a "dangerous child" where an old tyrant wants to get rid of a dangerous saviour/hero/demigod child who is destined to grow up and overthrow him or her, and goes overboard. It's present in the stories of Krishna, Horus, Zoroaster, Bacchus or even Snow White. Christianity just couldn't go without it or would have been mythologically and archetypally unsound.

IMO, the biggest mistake modern Christian theologians have made is to try to prove the story of Jesus as a historical fact. In this they fall short of science, but also deprive it of the power of myth.

Agreed it is a common archetype of myth - the best example, and obvious parallel, comes from the same mythological background, namely Moses in Egypt:

Pharaoh had commanded that all male Hebrew children born be drowned in the river Nile, but Moses' mother placed him in an ark and concealed the ark in the bulrushes by the riverbank, where the baby was discovered and adopted by Pharaoh's daughter.

This story would of course be familiar to every Jew. In the Jesus myth, Herod takes the place of "Pharaoh" - who, in Judaism, is the very pattern of the evil autocrat.

My only point is that, while of course the stories of Herod in the NT are mythology, there were sound reasons for casting him into that role, based on his actual historical characteristics.

[crazy canuck]

My only point is that, while of course the stories of Herod in the NT are mythology, there were sound reasons for casting him into that role, based on his actual historical characteristics.

I think the main reason he was cast in that role is there wasn't another option.  Even by the time the Gospel of Matthew was written people in the area would have known that the massacre didn't actually happen.  The readers of the Gospel would have understood that the story of the Magi and the Massacre were written to tie the story of Jesus into the well known stories of the Torah symbolically.  To keep the same story structure the writer of Matthew needed to cast Herod as Pharaoh.  Herod was really the only choice to fill that role whether or not his actual historical characteristics fit.  But I agree the historical Herod was likely good fit for the role.  But then anyone in his position likely would have also been a good candidate.

[Malthus]

My only point is that, while of course the stories of Herod in the NT are mythology, there were sound reasons for casting him into that role, based on his actual historical characteristics.

I think the main reason he was cast in that role is there wasn't another option.  Even by the time the Gospel of Matthew was written people in the area would have known that the massacre didn't actually happen.  The readers of the Gospel would have understood that the story of the Magi and the Massacre were written to tie the story of Jesus into the well known stories of the Torah symbolically.  To keep the same story structure the writer of Matthew needed to cast Herod as Pharaoh.  Herod was really the only choice to fill that role whether or not his actual historical characteristics fit.  But I agree the historical Herod was likely good fit for the role.  But then anyone in his position likely would have also been a good candidate.

I guess being Mr. Nice Guy wasn't exactly a winning prescription for success as a Roman client king. 

Indeed kings in general get a bad rap in the OT tradition - even the "best" of them, like David and Solomon, are held up as monsters of violence, vanity, oppression and bad faith. And those are the good ones!

I always found this aspect of the OT interesting. No doubt in part because it was written down by priests, but still - there is a lot of criticism of the powers that be. Samuel's response when the people of Israel ask for a king was interesting - basically, "okay, I'll find a king, but you will regret it  - a lot".

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day."

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

[crazy canuck]

Agreed.  In setting up an argument for why Kings should be godly men (ie do what the Priests want) they gave a good critique of what Kings actually do.

[The Minsky Moment]

Let's assume that Samuel and Kings was written at the earliest during the reign of Josiah and not completed until the exilic or Persian periods.  That provides a helpful context for looking at both the anti-monarchical and pro-Davidic elements of the text.

[Malthus]

Let's assume that Samuel and Kings was written at the earliest during the reign of Josiah and not completed until the exilic or Persian periods.  That provides a helpful context for looking at both the anti-monarchical and pro-Davidic elements of the text.

Not sure the text is wholly pro-Davidic - like other kings, he's protrayed as slightly monsterous ... that whole Bathsheba incident, not to mention his dying advice to Solomon that was suitable for a mafia don (basically, 'take care of all my enemies that I couldn't kill for various reasons').

[The Minsky Moment]

Hence the theory of multi-author contributions.

There is also a literary-political trope of the greatness of the youthful king being disappointed as he ages and falls into sin and error: same thing happens with Solomon.

[crazy canuck]

Let's assume that Samuel and Kings was written at the earliest during the reign of Josiah and not completed until the exilic or Persian periods.  That provides a helpful context for looking at both the anti-monarchical and pro-Davidic elements of the text.

Not sure the text is wholly pro-Davidic - like other kings, he's protrayed as slightly monsterous ... that whole Bathsheba incident, not to mention his dying advice to Solomon that was suitable for a mafia don (basically, 'take care of all my enemies that I couldn't kill for various reasons').

Yeah, it is not surprising that the Priest wrote an account of a golden David and Solomon who walked with God but then when they veered off the Priestly path bad things happened.  Its part of the narrative from those particular authors.

[Malthus]

There is also this - the Biblical portraits of these kings may simply be a fairly realistic one of leaders at the time the stories were composed or redacted (not, of course, realistic portraits of the actual kings David and Solomon, so much as of kings of the day when the stories were written down). David's advice to Solomon certainly smacks of gritty realism.

There is reason these stories resonate - like the Greek myths, the heroes they portray are flawed and complex characters, not one-note stainless heroes, or mighty cyphers like other ME monarchs tend to portray themselves in their propaganda. 

[crazy canuck]

Its an interesting paradox for biblical literalists.  If David and Solomon had been has powerful as they are described then they would have created their own story in the same way as other ME monarchs.  But then the Priestly class would not have had the ability it had to write the story and we wouldn't have the wonderful literature they handed down to tell us about how wonderful that age was.