Homosexuality in the Bible: David and Jonathan

[Sheilbh]

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.

Except to the extent that the written word itself becomes a form of propaganda - or I'd argue tied up in the ideology of a society.  The distinction between the subjective and objective has never entirely convinced anyone.

I also disagree that propaganda's not a useful term before the modern because I think that's far too dismissive of far too much good shit.

[Razgovory]

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.

Except to the extent that the written word itself becomes a form of propaganda - or I'd argue tied up in the ideology of a society.  The distinction between the subjective and objective has never entirely convinced anyone.

I also disagree that propaganda's not a useful term before the modern because I think that's far too dismissive of far too much good shit.

I was convinced.  It's just a pet peeve of mine.  I remember seeing a show where they showed a famous relief of the battle of Kadesh where Ramsesses 2 wins and called it propaganda.  I didn't think that's right.  Few people could read it so it wasn't aimed at convincing the public.  It was just Ramseses bragging.  It's like when Neil goes on about being all powerful.  It's not propaganda.  It's just an ego trip.

[Razgovory]

I just got home and I'm not feeling good so what I said may not have made any sense.  If it did, and was an intelligent contribution to the conversation then I meant to do that.  If not it was a mistake.

[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.

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.

The Pagan Christ was about the Pagan antecedents of Christianity.  It had nothing to do with 18,000 year old inscriptions.  I assume then that you did not actually read it.

[The Minsky Moment]

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

All this shows is that and 8th or later 9th century monarch employed the dynastic name Daled-vav-daled.  I think the most one can reasonably infer from this is that the identification of monarchy with the legendary tribal culture figure David existed at the latest some time prior to the Assyrian conquest.

[The Minsky Moment]

People made the same argument before Schielmann about The Illiad. 

The existence of Troy was known into late antiquity (the Romans founded the town of Ilium on top of the ruins of the prior settlements).  The location was just lost.  That doesn't mean that the actual narrative of the Iliad is an accuare depiction of historical events, or that the characters in the story were real people or did the things they are claimed to have done.

No one questions that late bronze age Greeks got into wars from time to time; no one could reasonably question that it is plausible that Greeks would be sacking cities in coastal Asia Minor.  It is not suprising that there was a significant urban settlement near the Hellespont (it is a pretty logical place to have one); nor is it suprising that like many late bronze age urban settlements, it met a violent end during the Dark Age.

I concede that it is reasonable to postulate that the story in the Iliad was "inspired by" an actual historical event, specifically involving a Mycenean attack on the city unearthed by Schliemann, just the Arthurian legends contain some aspects of real history (the "British" emperor Constantine; Vortigern; a battle on "Mt. Badon") but at its core is a romantic, literary confabulation.

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.   

Well I would certainly quibble as to "well documented" - for one thing the ancient Philistines were notorious for their relative illiteracy and hence documentation per se is sparse.  There is evidence of trade relationships and some cultural affinities, and much more speculative suppositions about a closer ethnic connection.    But making suppositions about Philistine culture in the 9th or 10th century BCE based on postulating ethnic connections with 13th/12th century Myceneans, and drawing conclusions about the mores of the latter based on an epic poem probably dating from around 8th century Greece, is an argument with some observable weaknesses.

[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

All this shows is that and 8th or later 9th century monarch employed the dynastic name Daled-vav-daled.  I think the most one can reasonably infer from this is that the identification of monarchy with the legendary tribal culture figure David existed at the latest some time prior to the Assyrian conquest.

As can be seen, this changes the narrative.

This pushes the date back to 8th or 9th century - closer to the date of the alleged kingdom of David than to the redaction of the Biblical text itself. Moreover, it is attributed to an outsider (a commemorative stele celebrating victories over these kings by their enemy) who, presumably, could not care less about Biblical accuracy.

All in all, it is pretty good evidence that the very existence of the Bible-mentioned kings as mentioned in the text concerning that period are not "legendary", even though this is, as far as I know, the only archaeological evidence of their existance.

While obviously it is not conclusive proof that a "David" ever existed, it demonstrates that, where it *can* be tested, the text is reasonably accurate; that attribution of the "house of David" line to kings did in fact exist in the 8th or 9th century - only a century and a half or so seperated from the date of David himself, and a century and a half makes it much less likely that the figure is wholly "a legendary tribal cultural figure"; and that the notion that there never was a "house of David", and the whole thing was made up by opponents of the "House of Omri" at a much later date (that is, the date the OT was redacted) is probably wrong - given that, apparently, Omri's own son Ahab, through his grandson Jehoram and great-grandson Ahaziah were considered of the "house of David" - at least, by their enemies.

[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]
8'. king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g
9'. of the House of David.

Much more likely is that the Omrids were themselves appropriating the popular "House of David" title for themselves, and this reflected by their enemies - which would be odd behaviour indeed if there never was a "David" or a 'House of David" to appropriate.

[Queequeg]

I concede that it is reasonable to postulate that the story in the Iliad was "inspired by" an actual historical event, specifically involving a Mycenean attack on the city unearthed by Schliemann, just the Arthurian legends contain some aspects of real history (the "British" emperor Constantine; Vortigern; a battle on "Mt. Badon") but at its core is a romantic, literary confabulation.

Arguing over something's core is not something I'm inclined to do.  The Iliad is consistently accurate in its depiction of Myceneaen warfare; the individualism, usage of chariots, importance of warlord-based centralized state focusing upon a single, greater king, usage of thrown spears, the usage of the ethnonymn Achaean, the importance of abducting women, the relative importance of the various places mentioned in the text, etc.....The Iliad is certainly not Herodotus, but Indo-European and late Bronze/early Iron Age studies would be very, very poor without the Rigveda, Iliad and Avesta.  While the telling of these stories obviously became a bit more dramatic over time, I think it is worth pointing out that they would not necessarily be prone to making crap up out of whole cloth, and the inherently diffused nature of the Oral Epic makes any one man's innovation impact upon the whole difficult, and very complex tools were developed to make memorization less arduous (that's why wine-dark water appears so many damn times in the Homeric works, for instance).

Now, maybe the Old Testament is different; there is a lot less stabby-stabby and a lot more beget-beget, and swords, shields and chariots are much better evidence.  But I would not expect whole-scale fabrication of characters a la Arthur.

Well I would certainly quibble as to "well documented" - for one thing the ancient Philistines were notorious for their relative illiteracy and hence documentation per se is sparse.  There is evidence of trade relationships and some cultural affinities, and much more speculative suppositions about a closer ethnic connection.    But making suppositions about Philistine culture in the 9th or 10th century BCE based on postulating ethnic connections with 13th/12th century Myceneans, and drawing conclusions about the mores of the latter based on an epic poem probably dating from around 8th century Greece, is an argument with some observable weaknesses.

Wasn't making the argument, just thought the connection was funny.

[The Minsky Moment]

As can be seen, this changes the narrative.

This pushes the date back to 8th or 9th century - closer to the date of the alleged kingdom of David than to the redaction of the Biblical text itself. Moreover, it is attributed to an outsider (a commemorative stele celebrating victories over these kings by their enemy) who, presumably, could not care less about Biblical accuracy.

All in all, it is pretty good evidence that the very existence of the Bible-mentioned kings as mentioned in the text concerning that period are not "legendary", even though this is, as far as I know, the only archaeological evidence of their existance.

Let's back up for a second and look at what the evidence tells us about the pre-Omride Canaanite hill country.  Simply put, there was no discernible "kingdom of David".  None of the material culture and monumental building that we would associate with a kingdom or large organized state exists before the early 9th century BCE.  Rather 10th century BCE Canaan looks pretty much exactly like 11th or 12th century BCE Canaan - namely, a peripheral area populated by an ethno-linguistic group that was politically fragmented into tribal and clan structures, and with no unified state.  The Biblical text that probably most accurately reflects this reality is the Book of Judges (once shorn of the anachronism that ports back the Yahwistic religious ideology back into a period in which it almost certainly does not belong), in which there exists no state structure at all beyond the tribe, and in which action or alliances across tribes occurs only temporarily under the leadership of charismatic or extraordinary individuals. 

One could reasonably imagine that some of these charismatic individuals would acquire fame or repute and eventually enter folklore, with inevitable distortion and embellishment of their deeds.  Each tribe or clan might have their own culture heros.  That would explain the origin of the stories narrated in the Book of Judges, except with the additional overlay of distortion involved in the authorial bias of the writers and redacters.

If there is a historical "D-V-D" he would have to figure such as this - a culture hero associated with what would eventually emerge as the tribe of Judah.  It could very well be based on a real historical personage who actually played the harp and defeated a large Philistine champion in physical combat, or it could be a amalgamation of several different individuals from several different times, or it could be a pure literary construct who nonetheless had such cultural resonance that he became assumed to be a real person and a model to be followed.  An obvious analogy would be King Arthur.

While obviously it is not conclusive proof that a "David" ever existed, it demonstrates that, where it *can* be tested, the text is reasonably accurate; that attribution of the "house of David" line to kings did in fact exist in the 8th or 9th century - only a century and a half or so seperated from the date of David himself,

This assumes one could take the Biblical chronology for David at face value, when there are good reasons not to.  In any event, a century and a half in a society without a bureaucracy or formal system for record keeping is a very long time.

and a century and a half makes it much less likely that the figure is wholly "a legendary tribal cultural figure"; and that the notion that there never was a "house of David", and the whole thing was made up by opponents of the "House of Omri" at a much later date (that is, the date the OT was redacted) is probably wrong - given that, apparently, Omri's own son Ahab, through his grandson Jehoram and great-grandson Ahaziah were considered of the "house of David" - at least, by their enemies.
. . .
Much more likely is that the Omrids were themselves appropriating the popular "House of David" title for themselves, and this reflected by their enemies - which would be odd behaviour indeed if there never was a "David" or a 'House of David" to appropriate.

First of all, I never asserted that the Omrides fabricated the concept of "David."  The Omrides were Kings in Israel (northern kingdom) and ruled from Samaria - and thus I assume did not associate with the David title.  The Tel Dan steele appears to recognize the distinction between Ahab and his son Jehoram (Kings of Israel) on the one hand, and Jehoram (a different Jehoram - Ahab's son-in-law, not his son) and Ahaziahu of Judah.  It is the latter that appear to be identified with the House of David, which makes sense because David is associated with the the city of Jerusalem. 

Your basic conclusion however is plausible - the kings of Judah that were contemporaneous with the Omrides probably appropriated a pre-existing source of legitimacy.  We differ in that you assume based on flimsy evidence that this source of legitimacy must have been a real person much like the one described in the Books of Samuel (if somewhat less important and powerful) who lived at the time the Biblical chronology suggests.  I think it is more likely we are dealing with the common phenomenon of an emerging dynasty appropriating a demigod or legendary culture hero as an ancestor: just as the early Goths, Franks and Burgundian kings claimed descent from various Trojan heros, or the Anglo-Saxons claimed to be "Wodan-born."  On my account "David" is more likely the Hercules of 9th century Judah, than an actual historical King.

[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.

The Pagan Christ was about the Pagan antecedents of Christianity.  It had nothing to do with 18,000 year old inscriptions.  I assume then that you did not actually read it.

It made a lot of stupid claims.  One was 18,000 year old claim.  Are you denying it?

[Malthus]

First of all, I never asserted that the Omrides fabricated the concept of "David." 

No, I thought (and correct me if i'm wrong) that your theory was that it was the priestly *enemies* of the Omrides who (in essence) fabricated the "House of David" as a mythological golden age of culture heroes, to use as a contrast to the (horrible, at lest to the priests) Omrides, and to ascribe the4 real achievements of the (horrible) Omrides to these mythological characters. Or at least, that's what I got out of this post:

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.

This theory makes intuitive sense - assuming that the OT was invented out of whole cloth when it was redacted, centuries after the events depicted.

It makes a lot less sense in light of this new archaeological information, assuming of course this stele is authentic and the "House of David" is in fact inscribed on it.

The stele pushes the date back, making the "house of David" attribution widespread (in that their enemies are using it) and conteporaneous with the very Omrides that the priests are later to critique. It cannot be a later attribution. If the 'house of David" must have had some prestige at the time the Omrides were ruling, or they (or at least there enemies) would never have ascribed that title to them. 

The Omrides were Kings in Israel (northern kingdom) and ruled from Samaria - and thus I assume did not associate with the David title.  The Tel Dan steele appears to recognize the distinction between Ahab and his son Jehoram (Kings of Israel) on the one hand, and Jehoram (a different Jehoram - Ahab's son-in-law, not his son) and Ahaziahu of Judah.  It is the latter that appear to be identified with the House of David, which makes sense because David is associated with the the city of Jerusalem. 

That makes sense and does not contradict materially the Biblical account, which describes the spit between the two kingdoms.

Your basic conclusion however is plausible - the kings of Judah that were contemporaneous with the Omrides probably appropriated a pre-existing source of legitimacy.  We differ in that you assume based on flimsy evidence that this source of legitimacy must have been a real person much like the one described in the Books of Samuel (if somewhat less important and powerful) who lived at the time the Biblical chronology suggests.

David *might* have been a real person. I think it more likely that such a person existed; it is of course possible that he didn't, but I see nothing in the OT account that appears wholly "mythological" in the rather brutally realistic account of his reign.

Certainly, the existece of this stele is corroberative evidence that the redactors of the OT did not simply invent or themselves adapt a folk-tale in order to critique the Omrides.

I think it is more likely we are dealing with the common phenomenon of an emerging dynasty appropriating a demigod or legendary culture hero as an ancestor: just as the early Goths, Franks and Burgundian kings claimed descent from various Trojan heros, or the Anglo-Saxons claimed to be "Wodan-born."  On my account "David" is more likely the Hercules of 9th century Judah, than an actual historical King.

But in contrast to Hercules or Wotan, there is nothing whatever "demi-godlike" attributed to David. Sure, his killing of Goliath in single combat was impressive - but not unrealistic: it was an early example of a mis-match of weapons systems (Goliath was a guy who was no doubt unbeatable with a sword, but a sling - used by an expert - beats a sword every time; it is hardly even a fair fight!)

Also unlike Goths etc. attributing their origins to Trojans, David was a king who (a) allegedly lived in the same geographic area - none of this "I got in a boat fleeing Troy and ended up in Germany" nonsense - and (b) not long before the known and attributed existence of the persons doing the attribution (the stele pushes this back to only a century and a half).

In short, there is:

(a) some literary evidence for his existence which, a certain amount of obvious exaggeration aside, isn't obviously on its face unrealistic or mythological; and

(b) there is some archaeological evidence that near-contemporaries believed that a "davidic' line of kings existed and was prominent enough to create a title worthy of appropriation.

Naturally, if one is to look for a golden empire of Solomon, one is unlikely to find it. There is however no really good reason to believe that David is a "demi-god" myth; more likely, he represents a real (if only significant in hindsight) local ruler, who successfully (for a time) united the unruly mixture of hill tribes and city statelets characteristic of this backwater between real empires.

[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.

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.

The Pagan Christ was about the Pagan antecedents of Christianity.  It had nothing to do with 18,000 year old inscriptions.  I assume then that you did not actually read it.

It made a lot of stupid claims.  One was 18,000 year old claim.  Are you denying it?

I would have to know what the hell you are talking about first.

[crazy canuck]

There is however no really good reason to believe that David is a "demi-god" myth; more likely, he represents a real (if only significant in hindsight) local ruler, who successfully (for a time) united the unruly mixture of hill tribes and city statelets characteristic of this backwater between real empires.

The bolded part is where you start getting into the mythological.  There is no archeological evidence of the House of David uniting anything.

[Malthus]

There is however no really good reason to believe that David is a "demi-god" myth; more likely, he represents a real (if only significant in hindsight) local ruler, who successfully (for a time) united the unruly mixture of hill tribes and city statelets characteristic of this backwater between real empires.

The bolded part is where you start getting into the mythological.  There is no archeological evidence of the House of David uniting anything.

No archaeological evidence, no. Nor is there necessarily going to be, as political events do not, in and of themselves, necessarily leave archaeological evidence. This does not mean that it is impossible to assign a probability to them, based on the *totality* of the evidence - on the written records and on this newly discovered stele.

We have evidence that the title "house of david" was considered important and prestigious enough to be used a century and a half after "david". Why? One possibility is that he's a wholly mythic culture-hero; the other, that he represents a real figure whose acts left a legacy that other inhabitants of the area found impressive (including it should be pointed out the undoubted *enemy* of Israel who had the stele carved!).

The nature of that legacy is described in the OT. There is no need to either swallow it whole or reject it utterly. In my opinion, the most reasonable approach is the middle way - that, where it appears realistic and is seemingly bolstered by corroberating evidence, to accept that it may in fact represent an actual chronicle of real events: a warlord who worked as a philistine mercenary for a time, growing in military and administrative skills, and eventually carving a statelet out of the badlands between the real and important empires of the near east, impressing friends and enemies alike with the legitimacy of his dynasty. 

And why not? Kings who unite a bunch of hill tribes and towns are ten a penny. David is only really important in *hindsight*. If the written account was in Sanskrit and was about some Thai figure who united the Karens, and a stele used that title, I think few would argue that he didn't really exist. Rather, minimalism seems an understandable and predictable over-reaction against those who seek to prove the literal truth of the Bible, right down to its obviously mythological bits - like the story of Noah and Adam and Eve. 

[The Minsky Moment]

CC's point is that the evidence suggests that the uniting of the hill tribes into something resembling a state took place in the 9th century BCE, which also happens to be a time when we can confirm from other sources -- including but not limited to the Tel Dan stela -- of the identity of the Kings of Israel (Samaria) and Judah.  This is probably not coincidental - the fact that the earliest archaeological evidence of state-building coincides with the earliest literary evidence of recognition of the Israelite monarchs by outsiders strongly suggests that the kingdom came to be around this time, and not 100-150 years earlier as the Biblical text would indicate.  Thus, referring to a "king" David is running against the historical evidence, because we do not see anything that we ought to see had something resembling a unified monarchical state existed at the time ascribed to David's life.  (Of course, all archaeological evidence is provisional - it is always possible that new finds will radically change our understanding of this period and provide support for the Biblical account - unless and until that happens, however, I prefer to only claim that which has concrete support to it).

I would draw an analogy to Clovis, the founder of the great Frankish kindgom in Gaul.  Clovis was definitely a real person who is mentioned and discussed in contemporary sources.  We can also be fairly confident of the historicity of Clovis' father Childeric, who is traditionally referred to as a "king", although a better description would be "very successful warband leader."  We have confidence that Childeric existed because he had some interactions with Rome and because his tomb was discovered.

According to Gregory of Tours (who wrote Clovis' bio after 50 years after Clovis' death), Childeric's father was a fellow named Merovech.  Merovech gave his name to Clovis' royal dynasty - the Merovingians.  Unforunately, there exists no contemporaneous evidence of Merovech's existence, much less his status as a founder of royal dynasty.  Gregory says nothing about him other than his name and theimplied  suggestion that he was *not* related to Chlodio (a well-known Frankish war chief of the early/mid 5th century).  A later chronicle asserts that he was the illegitimate offspring of Chlodio's wife by a mysterious sea monster. Interestingly, the more time that passes from the real events, the more the chronicles add additional detail (almost all fantastic) of Merovech and his alleged ancestors.

Thus, even though Clovis was a powerful ruler and a major figure in European history, within a few decades of his death, no one seemed to have any clear idea who his grandfather was (although the later chroniclers happily traced back a fantastic lineage to Troy of course).  This is no accident - before Clovis himself (or arguably Childeric), the franks did not have anything resembling a unified state.  Obviously, Clovis had a grandfather, but it is not particularly likely that this grandfather was a "king" or indeed anything more than a minor chieftain.