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.

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.

I don't think so.  Propaganda is a subjective writing style used to convince masses of people.  When a society is almost entirely illiterate and has not made a distinction between subjective and objective view points it doesn't really fit the definition of propaganda.

[Razgovory]

Oh, how do we know that?  

The smilie there means you are kidding right?

I suppose you'll never know.

[Malthus]

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.

The difference here is that there is no need to *invent* out of whole cloth some figures called "David" and "Solomon" who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, and who have some successes and some failures - *real* kings have all that stuff happen to them, too.

There is little in the story of David to indicate he is a wholly mythological character. Why is it better to assume that it is all an elaborate myth, as opposed to mythologized real events?

To my mind at least, it makes more sense to assume that the OT account of the House of David is based on mythologized actual history. We can of course absent archaeology never be sure, but certainly the account is not unrealistic - and that realism can just as easily, or better, be explained by the vicissitudes of actual events, as opposed to assuming some sort of internal textual tension between priests and royalists (and why assume that one or the other's positions would remain imbedded in the text where actual events would not?)

[crazy canuck]

To my mind at least, it makes more sense to assume that the OT account of the House of David is based on mythologized actual history. We can of course absent archaeology never be sure, but certainly the account is not unrealistic - and that realism can just as easily, or better, be explained by the vicissitudes of actual events, as opposed to assuming some sort of internal textual tension between priests and royalists (and why assume that one or the other's positions would remain imbedded in the text where actual events would not?)

For what it is worth, that is Finkelstein's view (I hope I am getting his name right).  He believes there is some grain of truth in the stories and that there was a strong oral tradition regarding the house of David before it was reduced to writing.  His main beef is that the "golden age" was greatly exaggerated (mainly for the purposes JR has identified) and placed in the wrong time period.

[The Minsky Moment]

The difference here is that there is no need to *invent* out of whole cloth some figures called "David" and "Solomon" who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, and who have some successes and some failures - *real* kings have all that stuff happen to them, too.

There would be a need if you were writing in the 7th century BCE about the legendary founder of a royal dynasty from 350 years earlier, about which you had no information other than perhaps some tribal folk tales (if that).

There is little in the story of David to indicate he is a wholly mythological character.

There is also little to indicate he is a genuine historical figure.  The archaeological evidence appear to contradict the claims made about him in the OT although I concede that is not final, categorical proof against it.  Ultimately one can't prove the negative, but that should not be the test.  We differ in our assumptions about where the burden of proof should lie here.  The mere fact that he appears as a character in the Bible IMO creates no more presumption as to his historicity than Moses, Noah, or Lot's wife.

To my mind at least, it makes more sense to assume that the OT account of the House of David is based on mythologized actual history. We can of course absent archaeology never be sure, but certainly the account is not unrealistic - and that realism can just as easily, or better, be explained by the vicissitudes of actual events, as opposed to assuming some sort of internal textual tension between priests and royalists (and why assume that one or the other's positions would remain imbedded in the text where actual events would not?) 

We've had this argument before. 
It is true that myths and legends can contain kernels of historical truth; it is also true that some do not.  And even for those that do - how does one distiniguish what is the true kernel from the distortion?  IMO the only intellectually honest and rigorous way to do it is to insist on concrete supporting evidence before accepting a claim to historicity.  So I would characterize myself as a "minimalist" a la Finkelstein, just as with respect to Late Antiquity I adhere more to the minimalism of Goffart as to barbarian origins as opposed to the Wenkus-Herwig "traditionskerne" school.

[The Minsky Moment]

For what it is worth, that is Finkelstein's view (I hope I am getting his name right).  He believes there is some grain of truth in the stories and that there was a strong oral tradition regarding the house of David before it was reduced to writing.  His main beef is that the "golden age" was greatly exaggerated (mainly for the purposes JR has identified) and placed in the wrong time period.

Specifically, IIRC, he promotes the view -- fairly common in the academic community - that the Israelite state as described in the OT derives its origins from the rise of the Omride Dynasty (ie the mid-to-late 9th century as opposed to dates over a century earlier ascribed to the reign of David).

Because the Omrides were viewed as idolators and importers of foreign customs, the authors of the OT would have good reason to downplay that fact and ascribe the origins of the Israelite state to some legendary tribal folk hero instead, rather than admit that Israel's golden age came to be under the reign of faithless Baal worshippers.

[Malthus]

There would be a need if you were writing in the 7th century BCE about the legendary founder of a royal dynasty from 350 years earlier, about which you had no information other than perhaps some tribal folk tales (if that).

Again, no evidence that this is true. The fact that earlier writings have not survived until the present day is not proof that they did not exist; building a theory - that the House of Omri is real but the House of David is mythological - on the basis of absense of archaeological evidence strikes me as a massive exercise in ignoring that "absense of evidence is not evidence of absence".

There is also little to indicate he is a genuine historical figure.  The archaeological evidence appear to contradict the claims made about him in the OT although I concede that is not final, categorical proof against it.  Ultimately one can't prove the negative, but that should not be the test.  We differ in our assumptions about where the burden of proof should lie here.  The mere fact that he appears as a character in the Bible IMO creates no more presumption as to his historicity than Moses, Noah, or Lot's wife.

There is the evidence internal to the story itself, which differs in rather fundamental ways from the story of Lot's wife etc. - for one, it is realistic.

Thing is, archaeology is not and cannot be like a court case - otherwise, one is left in the absurd position of beliving that no-one existed prior to the existance of reliable records.

I have no complaint with the notion that, given the CURRENT state of archaeology, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that David really existed (though there is a more or less reliable tradition to that effect).

Where we differ is in drawing the conclusion that the 'case for the existence of David' has 'failed the test required for the burden of proof' and therefore concluding AS A FACT that he did not exist, and that the first "real" dynasty was therefore that of Omri - and everything that flows from that.

What is missing is an appreciation of just how remarkable, and remarkably rare, actual achaeological survivals can be, even for major figures. All we know of the founder of the Egyptian dynasty is a few fragments, such as the Narmur Palette; if that had, and similar odds and sods, had not been found, he'd be just as "legendary" as David.   

We've had this argument before. 
It is true that myths and legends can contain kernels of historical truth; it is also true that some do not.  And even for those that do - how does one distiniguish what is the true kernel from the distortion?  IMO the only intellectually honest and rigorous way to do it is to insist on concrete supporting evidence before accepting a claim to historicity.  So I would characterize myself as a "minimalist" a la Finkelstein, just as with respect to Late Antiquity I adhere more to the minimalism of Goffart as to barbarian origins as opposed to the Wenkus-Herwig "traditionskerne" school.

The problem with this is that it leads to an equal possibility for "distortion" in the other direction - seeing existence as a certainty, one way or the other; that a particular figure either "existed" (if the test is met) or "did not exist" (if the burden of proof is not met). The distortion inherent in this is to make conclusive theories based on issues which are in fact uncertain; it is a natural habit for those trained to law. The unfortunate effect is to back-impose the theory on the evidence - making all sorts of detailed conclusions (for example) about the motives of the priests and scribes drafting the OT, based on the presumed non-existance of the quasi-historical figures mentioned.

Reality is rather messier. For some figures the most intellectually rigourous and honest approach is to admit that we do not know if they existed or not; clearly the account of their existence in the chronicles is some evidence of their existence (which can be measured internally - obviously magical or legendary figures are less likely to exist than those not, etc.). Evidence lacks either way to confirm or deny their existence and it is most unsafe to assume as a matter of fact that they positively did not exist.

[Malthus]

Also, it is not quite true that there is no archaeological evidence that the "House of David" existed. This discovery, made in 1993-1994, appears to confirm that it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

[Queequeg]

There would be a need if you were writing in the 7th century BCE about the legendary founder of a royal dynasty from 350 years earlier, about which you had no information other than perhaps some tribal folk tales (if that).

People made the same argument before Schielmann about The Illiad.  I don't think there was as dramatic a break in Jewish history in this period as the Greek Dark Ages, though sadly I know far more about Greece than contemporary Israel.

[Queequeg]

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.

There is a fairly well documented relationship between the Philistines and the Mycenaeans, oddly enough.  Though I don't know if there is any evidence that Mycenaeans practiced pederasty; IIRC, the Hellenes themselves believed it originated on an Island in immediately pre-Classical times.   

[Razgovory]

Also, it is not quite true that there is no archaeological evidence that the "House of David" existed. This discovery, made in 1993-1994, appears to confirm that it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

I think there may be a handful of other stuff though it's mostly recent findings.

[crazy canuck]

Also, it is not quite true that there is no archaeological evidence that the "House of David" existed. This discovery, made in 1993-1994, appears to confirm that it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

Malthus, you really should read Finkelstein's book.  This is the main reason he is a minimalist and not someone who outright denies the house of David existed at all.  However, he also identifies a great many problems with the David story that simply do not agree with the archeological evidence.  Its not simply a case of prior written records not being found.  The story is incompatable with the evidence.

[crazy canuck]

There would be a need if you were writing in the 7th century BCE about the legendary founder of a royal dynasty from 350 years earlier, about which you had no information other than perhaps some tribal folk tales (if that).

People made the same argument before Schielmann about The Illiad.  I don't think there was as dramatic a break in Jewish history in this period as the Greek Dark Ages, though sadly I know far more about Greece than contemporary Israel.

No, its not an absence of evidence argument.  There is a large amount of archeological evidence and it points in another direction.

[Malthus]

Also, it is not quite true that there is no archaeological evidence that the "House of David" existed. This discovery, made in 1993-1994, appears to confirm that it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

Malthus, you really should read Finkelstein's book.  This is the main reason he is a minimalist and not someone who outright denies the house of David existed at all.  However, he also identifies a great many problems with the David story that simply do not agree with the archeological evidence.  Its not simply a case of prior written records not being found.  The story is incompatable with the evidence.

I'm referring to the 'no house of David, rather it's a myth created by priests unhappy with the house of Omri' argument made by MM:

Because the Omrides were viewed as idolators and importers of foreign customs, the authors of the OT would have good reason to downplay that fact and ascribe the origins of the Israelite state to some legendary tribal folk hero instead, rather than admit that Israel's golden age came to be under the reign of faithless Baal worshippers.

There is no doubt that the actual historical importance of the alleged empire of David & Solomon is much overblown in the OT. Those claims to some sort of widespread imperium are, clearly, disprovable.

[Razgovory]

Also, it is not quite true that there is no archaeological evidence that the "House of David" existed. This discovery, made in 1993-1994, appears to confirm that it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

Malthus, you really should read Finkelstein's book.  This is the main reason he is a minimalist and not someone who outright denies the house of David existed at all.  However, he also identifies a great many problems with the David story that simply do not agree with the archeological evidence.  Its not simply a case of prior written records not being found.  The story is incompatable with the evidence.

Hopefully it's better then the "Pagan Christ" book you tried to get me to read which purported to translate 18,000 year old inscriptions.