Homosexuality in the Bible: David and Jonathan

[Razgovory]

I don't think "propaganda" is a useful term in describing writings from pre-modern periods (except perhaps in very literate societies of say Athens and Rome).  It's a rather modern concept that doesn't really correspond to the forms of literature ancient peoples.

[crazy canuck]

  There are his own works and a few references to him in the surviving works of others.  In short no concrete evidence.

If we have works he wrote that sounds pretty concrete to me.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think "propaganda" is a useful term in describing writings from pre-modern periods (except perhaps in very literate societies of say Athens and Rome).  It's a rather modern concept that doesn't really correspond to the forms of literature ancient peoples.

Finkelstein's thesis, roughly put, is that the Story of David was very much written for propaganda purposes.

The ancient Egyptians were masters at propaganda.

Why do you think it is only a modern concept.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't think "propaganda" is a useful term in describing writings from pre-modern periods (except perhaps in very literate societies of say Athens and Rome).  It's a rather modern concept that doesn't really correspond to the forms of literature ancient peoples.

I think you're right, but not for the reason you do. Almost everything pre-modern is propaganda in some form or other. And that's why it's not useful to use the term.

[Malthus]

  There are his own works and a few references to him in the surviving works of others.  In short no concrete evidence.

If we have works he wrote that sounds pretty concrete to me.

Heh, the first five books of the OT are attributed to Moses. 

I think more to the point is that it does not matter whether a particular character "really existed" or not, for the purrpose of determining whether his or her character, as depicted, demonstrates certain attributes were (or were not) approved of by society at the time of writing.

[The Minsky Moment]

Which is why I'm discussing the issue, rather, in the context of the known types of relationships that existed between young warriors in the cultures we know about that were contempraneous - such as those of the Greeks. The David-figure, real or construct, existed in a world where the Israelites were quite familiar with this, via contact and conflict with the Philistines.

I doubt the Israelites who wrote the Books of Samuel or Kings were familiar with Greek culture or Greek literature.  Moreoever, assuming a late 7th century date for authorship of the David-Solomon narratives, the Phillistines would have been gone for over a century and hence there would be no first-hand knowledge of their cultural practices.  Not to mention that I am not aware of "the known types of relationships that existed between young warriors" in Philistia, much less whether those relationships had anything in common with those of Classical Greece several centuries later.

Sounds like a variation on Joseph Campbell's "hero with a thousand faces".

In part, although what may also be going on is that the same legend is being split into two separate literary personas, with similar biographies but emphasizing different archetypal characterisitics of leadership (David's charismatic warrior-musician-palace builder vs. Solomon's wise lawmaker-judge-temple builder).

However, your reading of the narrative is too simple on exactly the point under discussion - in the narrative, David does not "oust" the legitimate heir, but is his best friend (or lover, or both). He takes the throne after the heir is offed by Philistines.

That is not accurate - in the Biblical account, both Saul and Jonathan are killed in the battle; leaving Saul's remaining heir Ish-bosheth.  Rather than acknowledge Ish-bosheth, David lauches a factional civil war that lasts for a couple of years without much success until Abner (the power behind the throne) switched sides and then is rather conveniently killed off.

Moreover, the "golden age" is more associated with Solomon than David (David's reign was more a time of strife), and even then, the narrative is profoundly ambiguous about how "golden" that age really was; remember Rehoboham's 'my father chastised you with whips ..." speech.

Both stories have a clear narrative arc - 2 Sam 5 recounts a clear Davidic golden age in which David builds a great palace, recieves tribute for the construction from Hiram Tyre, smites his foes, and "waxes greater and greater" becuase God is "with him."  After an interlude of the recurring Ark narrative, David returns in Chapter 8 to smite more foes, receive more tribute, establish imperial garrisons, and is said to bring "justice and righteousness" to his people.  It is not till later that David sees Bathsheeba, beginning the "decline and fall" phase of the narrative.  It is only after that point that we see familial and civil strife in the House of David.

The Solomon story is very similar: he also builds a monumental structure (the Temple and apparently also another palace), again with help from the very same Hiram of Tyre, also asserts imperial dominion over Syria,  is said to bring peace and justice to his people.  The Solomonic golden age is unequivocal until he grew "old" and his foreign wives and concubines began to turn him toward pagan practices.  I Kings 11.  Again, the narrative involves the corrupting influence of a woman who draws the good king away from God, thus leading to decline, a trope that recurs with dreary repetitiveness throughout the two books of kings.

In short, as a canned narrative or archetype, it seems to closely mirror a plausible reality; the story of David and his family would not look out of place if you attributed it to the Ceasars or indeed many a real, existing ruling clan (no doubt one highly coloured or exaggerated in many ways - no way was the kingdom of David anything like as prominent as alleged in the OT, assuming it even existed).

Of course it mirrors a plausible reality; the priests who wrote it were creating a kind of "mirror for princes" -- both positive and negative -- as a message and example to the monarchs of their own day and their advisors.  It was only natural for them to tell a story in a way that reflected their own contemporary concerns (influence of foreign cults, royal marriages as possible source of ideological contagion, the pre-eminence of Jerusalem and the temple, diplomatic and military contacts with the Levantine "near abroad", the risks and opportunities of dynastic conflict and civil war, etc.)

[crazy canuck]

  There are his own works and a few references to him in the surviving works of others.  In short no concrete evidence.

If we have works he wrote that sounds pretty concrete to me.

Heh, the first five books of the OT are attributed to Moses. 

The difference is of course that we know Moses didnt write it.

[Malthus]

I don't think "propaganda" is a useful term in describing writings from pre-modern periods (except perhaps in very literate societies of say Athens and Rome).  It's a rather modern concept that doesn't really correspond to the forms of literature ancient peoples.

I think you're right, but not for the reason you do. Almost everything pre-modern is propaganda in some form or other. And that's why it's not useful to use the term.

Again, it simply seems odd and unnatural to attribute the story of David & Co. to propaganda, however defined. What exactly is it propaganda *for*? I mean, the kings of Israel were gardly depicted in a consistently *good* light, were they? Nor, for that matter, were they depicted consistently as *bad*.

This is in heavy contrast to (say) official Egyptian chronicles, which (Akenaten aside) tended to depict Pharoh as more or less unchangingly god-like (occasionally plastering over the same claims made by previous pharohs it is true ... ).

No doubt the story was subject to a certain amount of manipulation by various partisans, but it does not appear at first glance exactly as one would expect of a royal pangyric or propaganda. Without some convincing, I'm gonna find it difficult to accept that this was some sort of really sophisticated propaganda, warts and all, intended to fool future generations.

[The Brain]

  There are his own works and a few references to him in the surviving works of others.  In short no concrete evidence.

If we have works he wrote that sounds pretty concrete to me.

Heh, the first five books of the OT are attributed to Moses. 

The difference is of course that we know Moses didnt write it.

[The Minsky Moment]

But it does seem odd that if David is largely a creation of later authors to suite their then political needs it is intriguing that they would create such a hero with so many warts.

Because the overarching theme of the Samuel-Kings narrative is that the nation and dynasty prosper when the leader keeps faith with YWH and does what the priests (who wrote the narrative) say.  When the leader backslides - even if he is otherwise the great and virtuous man like David or Solomon - disaster strikes, and the dynasty itself is put at risk.  The message to a contemporary monarch is - even a David or a Solomon could fall into error and suffer the consequences, so watch out.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm talking about widely accepted historical figures.  For instance, Catullus. There's no grave of Catullus.  There are no artifacts.  There are his own works and a few references to him in the surviving works of others.  In short no concrete evidence.

Compared to the evidence for the existence of the historical David, that is concrete enough for an office block.

I don't think "propaganda" is a useful term in describing writings from pre-modern periods (except perhaps in very literate societies of say Athens and Rome).  It's a rather modern concept that doesn't really correspond to the forms of literature ancient peoples

It's a valid point; the term "propaganda" is too freighted with modern associations.  The concept of a writing designed in whole or in part to effectuate a particular ideological or political aim is what is at issue here.

[crazy canuck]

Again, it simply seems odd and unnatural to attribute the story of David & Co. to propaganda, however defined. What exactly is it propaganda *for*? I mean, the kings of Israel were gardly depicted in a consistently *good* light, were they? Nor, for that matter, were they depicted consistently as *bad*.

Finkelstein makes a pretty compelling argument to the contrary.  You should read his book.  It has been a couple years since I have and so my summary would be poor.  It is too bad the old forum died because I think we had this very discussion when I raised the thesis of the book a few years ago.

[The Minsky Moment]

The priestly writers (or the "Deutoronomist") had no interest or incentive in glorifying the monarchy per se; arguably they had a contrary interest.  The tension between a priestly and royal elite is a constant of Israelite and early Jewish history, ultimately culminating in the eviction of the Books of Maccabee from the OT canon.  The writers of the OT don't write panygerics precisely because they wanted to emphasize that even the best kings were human and fallible, and themselves subject to the rule of God  - and therefore those priests and prophets who intercede with God.  Hence the story of Bathsheeba where David sins and is only forgiven when he accepts the valid reprimand and rebuke of Nathan, prophet and priest.  That is the difference between a society like Egypt where secular and spiritual power was united in a single God-priest-King, and ancient Israel, where these powers were divided.

The "propaganda" here is not that "our king is better than your king" but "our God is better than your God" - this allows the authors to explain away disasters that befall God's chosen people as a function of their leader's failure to serve God properly.

[Razgovory]

  There are his own works and a few references to him in the surviving works of others.  In short no concrete evidence.

If we have works he wrote that sounds pretty concrete to me.

Heh, the first five books of the OT are attributed to Moses. 

The difference is of course that we know Moses didnt write it.

Oh, how do we know that?   The point is if we use the same critical eye to examine historical figures as you enjoy doing with biblical figures we find that the evidence for them is often quite sparse.

[crazy canuck]

Oh, how do we know that?  

The smilie there means you are kidding right?