Interesting little issue. Though I guess I'm treading on Marti's turf a bit. ;) The topic came up in another context, and so i read a bit of my OT and thought I'd mention it here ...
Question is this: where David and Jonathan (the Biblical characters) in fact lovers?
The evidence:
There is nothing in the OT that actually comes out and says that the two got it on. What it says is that they had a very close, loving relationship - so much so that Jonathan turns against his own father when he tries to have David killed (making his father rage at Jonathan's "perversity" ) and that, after Jonathan's death, David laments that their love was "better than the love of women".
All this has lead some folks to assume that their relationship was like that of other such famous warrior-lovers of history, like Achilles and Patroklius. (sp?). Moreover, these are clearly the "good guys". So, by extention, this sort of homosexuality isn't 'bad", unlike (say) that condemned in Leviticus.
Bible references:
1. Jonathan loves David "as himself" and became "one in spirit" with him; takes off his clothes and gives them to David:
Quote1 Samuel 18:
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.
2. Jonathan saves David's life, and David kisses him and they weep together:
Quote1 Samuel 20:41
After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.
3. David's lament, that Jonathan's love was "more wonderful than that of women":
Quote2 Samuel 1:26
grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.
Now, it can (and has!) been disputed that this does not necessarily add up to a *sexual* relationship. The notion that the Bible's greatest hero was in a homosexual relationship, and apparently one approved of in the Bible, is profoundly disturbing to some, for obvious reasons.
Handing over robes and weapons was a common mark of favour (though I think highly unusual to hand over the robes you happen to be wearing!), the kiss is a common greeting used between close friends in some cultures and is not necessarily sexual, and "love" obviously does not necessarily have a sexual component.
Nonetheless, the relationship as depicted is easier to interpret as one of sexual love. Loving a buddy "as oneself' and as "one spirit" implies more passion than a mere friendship; handing over the clothes you are wearing is an unusually intimate mark of friendship; kissing and weeping together implies an intimacy unusual between male friends; and as for "your love for me was more wonderful than that of women " ... that speaks for itself, no?
Not that David at least was "gay" in the modern sense - he clearly and famously had passionate sexual affairs with women - such as Bathsheeba. Plus, he married Jonathan's sister!
I'm sure this is enough for Marty. For me, unless somebody digs up a document explicitly stating that historical figure X liked penis I generally don't buy it. There seems to be some sort of swat team out to find historical figures who might possibly have been gay. I think it's a waste of time and serves no purpose for gay rights.
I think that it is totally interesting to seek out new interpretations of old texts.
:rolleyes:
-He prefers the company of men.
-Who doesn't?
I once read an article about this - I think there was even more proofs suggesting that there was an intimate relationship between them. It's definitely a recurring topic in gay culture for at least a couple of centuries, if not more.
Interestingly, I think one of the unforeseen side-effects of gay liberation (at least at the current stage - there is no-one saying this can't change in future) is paradoxically the withdrawal of homoeroticism from many areas of life. "Gay" is such a strong identification label, it forces people to make a choice one way or another and as such removes a lot of homoeroticism from relations between men who do not self-identify as gay. I read an article recently how hugging or even kissing were quite a common expression of camaraderie between soldiers in WW2; and even today in many Arab countries you can apparently see men walking in the street with their arms on each other's shoulder or kissing on he lips etc. I think a lot of ancient homosexuality/homoeroticism was probably like this (with an additional frottage for Greeks).
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
I once read an article about this - I think there was even more proofs suggesting that there was an intimate relationship between them. It's definitely a recurring topic in gay culture for at least a couple of centuries, if not more.
Interestingly, I think one of the unforeseen side-effects of gay liberation (at least at the current stage - there is no-one saying this can't change in future) is paradoxically the withdrawal of homoeroticism from many areas of life. "Gay" is such a strong identification label, it forces people to make a choice one way or another and as such removes a lot of homoeroticism from relations between men who do not self-identify as gay. I read an article recently how hugging or even kissing were quite a common expression of camaraderie between soldiers in WW2; and even today in many Arab countries you can apparently see men walking in the street with their arms on each other's shoulder or kissing on he lips etc. I think a lot of ancient homosexuality/homoeroticism was probably like this (with an additional frottage for Greeks).
That's a really good point.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
I once read an article about this - I think there was even more proofs suggesting that there was an intimate relationship between them. It's definitely a recurring topic in gay culture for at least a couple of centuries, if not more.
Interestingly, I think one of the unforeseen side-effects of gay liberation (at least at the current stage - there is no-one saying this can't change in future) is paradoxically the withdrawal of homoeroticism from many areas of life. "Gay" is such a strong identification label, it forces people to make a choice one way or another and as such removes a lot of homoeroticism from relations between men who do not self-identify as gay. I read an article recently how hugging or even kissing were quite a common expression of camaraderie between soldiers in WW2; and even today in many Arab countries you can apparently see men walking in the street with their arms on each other's shoulder or kissing on he lips etc. I think a lot of ancient homosexuality/homoeroticism was probably like this (with an additional frottage for Greeks).
Very good post. You see a lot of man-man contact in Istanbul that really, really confuses me.
For the record I am not saying they were "not really gay" - probably if they lived today, many of these guys would be gay. But in their culture, this was probably the expression of man-on-man love that was both socially acceptable and sexually satisfactory.
Yes everyone was gay, whoop de doo. STFU Mart.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
I once read an article about this - I think there was even more proofs suggesting that there was an intimate relationship between them. It's definitely a recurring topic in gay culture for at least a couple of centuries, if not more.
Interestingly, I think one of the unforeseen side-effects of gay liberation (at least at the current stage - there is no-one saying this can't change in future) is paradoxically the withdrawal of homoeroticism from many areas of life. "Gay" is such a strong identification label, it forces people to make a choice one way or another and as such removes a lot of homoeroticism from relations between men who do not self-identify as gay. I read an article recently how hugging or even kissing were quite a common expression of camaraderie between soldiers in WW2; and even today in many Arab countries you can apparently see men walking in the street with their arms on each other's shoulder or kissing on he lips etc. I think a lot of ancient homosexuality/homoeroticism was probably like this (with an additional frottage for Greeks).
It's pretty clear David wasn't 'gay' in the modern sense of exclusively preferring men. One of the most famous Biblical stories about David is his scandalous affair with Bathsheeba (he orders his general to have her inconvenient husband Uriah the Hittite "accidentally" killed).
Quote from: The Brain on February 26, 2010, 05:57:29 PM
:rolleyes:
-He prefers the company of men.
-Who doesn't?
It's actually funny how, rather than gays having an agenda to "gay up" historical figures, such often obvious references from chroniclers and the like are spun off in the most incredible ways, just to avoid saying someone was a homo.
For example, we have a Polish King (Ladislaus III, who died during the battle of Varna), about whom a contemporary chronicler wrote that he "shunned the company of women", and "preferred to give in instead to frolicking in the company of men, especially a page that was his favourite". So a lot of conservative historians are bending over backwards to interpret "frolicking in the company of men" as meaning he liked to play cards and drink booze. :D
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 26, 2010, 05:41:03 PM
I'm sure this is enough for Marty. For me, unless somebody digs up a document explicitly stating that historical figure X liked penis I generally don't buy it. There seems to be some sort of swat team out to find historical figures who might possibly have been gay. I think it's a waste of time and serves no purpose for gay rights.
Seems to be a tad more substance to this one than to most - the "your love was better than that of women" bit ... also, speculation along these lines about David & Jonathan isn't a modern thing.
Bas reliefs or it didn't happen.
Quote
It's actually funny how, rather than gays having an agenda to "gay up" historical figures, such often obvious references from chroniclers and the like are spun off in the most incredible ways, just to avoid saying someone was a homo.
Same with literature. Always wanted to sit in on a lecture on Moby-Dick at BYU or some bullshit Evangelical school.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 26, 2010, 05:41:03 PMThere seems to be some sort of swat team out to find historical figures who might possibly have been gay. I think it's a waste of time and serves no purpose for gay rights.
I think this is a common view, but is such nonsense. The gay swat team have, overwhelmingly, targeted figures whose sexuality has been doubted for a very long time. King James I was known as Queen James and suffered frankly libels about his relationship with Villiers - something similar existed with Edward II and in the Elizabethan period there were sufficient rumours for Marlowe's play to hint rather strongly. From that period Shakespeare's sonnets were suspect very shortly after publication. Of the 150- something sonnets about 120 were addressed to a man the 'fair youth' after the 17th century almost all of those sonnets had the pronouns changed to make them more sexually acceptable. Tennyson said he like the sonnets and was warned off them because they were terribly 'Hellenic' and there have long been rumours about Tennyson's relationship with Hallam. Byron's a bit of a given.
The thing is history is full of cheerful heterosexuals about whom there are no gay theories because there are no contemporary sources that suggest anything else. No-one would allege, for example, that Charles II was a little bit queer or Henri IV for that matter. Ben Jonson is safely straight and John Donne prodigiously so.
This isn't about gay rights - neither are feminist histories about womens' rights - this is about history and improving it through a multitude of perspectives on the sources we have. However, of course, homosexuality is a recent invention and the best we can say is that there have been long-standing historical rumours in all of the cases I mention above. But it has nothing to do with gay rights whether Shakespeare was a knob-jockey or not, it has everything to do with conventional readings of the sonnets.
Incidentally on the whole man-man contact in England I believe it was really disturbed in the 17th and 18th century. The conventional reading has been that it was, with the reformation and the emergence of the middle class you had the rise of a more personal faith and a more stringent moral code, with the attendant imposition of more strict social roles on women and more sexual prohibition than the, presumably, free-and-easy late Medieval and Tudor England. As ever the bourgeois fuck everything up.
Quote from: Malthus on February 26, 2010, 06:16:13 PM
Seems to be a tad more substance to this one than to most - the "your love was better than that of women" bit
It could be suggesting something spiritual instead of physical.
Yeah maybe he meant less drama, which rules out gay.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 07:42:07 PM
As ever the bourgeois fuck everything up.
I was told that my apt looks bougie. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 26, 2010, 08:17:11 PM
It could be suggesting something spiritual instead of physical.
Mr. Wiggy, to me, your spiritual love is better than that of a woman. Sounds faggy and closeted.
Quote from: garbon on February 26, 2010, 08:47:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 07:42:07 PM
As ever the bourgeois fuck everything up.
I was told that my apt looks bougie. :(
Oh God, so does mine. I don't want to live in a hovel.
Quote from: garbon on February 26, 2010, 08:47:57 PM
Mr. Wiggy, to me, your spiritual love is better than that of a woman. Sounds faggy and closeted.
Religious peeps sometimes talk about God the same way. They're obviously not fucking Him.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 26, 2010, 09:02:42 PM
Religious peeps sometimes talk about God the same way. They're obviously not fucking Him.
But of course, they are all married to Christ who is forever absent.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 26, 2010, 09:02:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 26, 2010, 08:47:57 PM
Mr. Wiggy, to me, your spiritual love is better than that of a woman. Sounds faggy and closeted.
Religious peeps sometimes talk about God the same way. They're obviously not fucking Him.
Actually that's a common (if, in my view, wrong) interpretation of at least one case of spiritual love:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rodin-web.org%2Fworks%2Fpix%2Fbernini_theresa_face_front.jpg&hash=6fe6218919c4bb61b638ee001d8b428a4d2ec5dc)
Quote from: The Brain on February 26, 2010, 08:46:11 PM
Yeah maybe he meant less drama, which rules out gay.
Quote1 Samuel 20:41
After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.
Well, so much for
that theory. :D
Quote from: The Brain on February 26, 2010, 05:57:29 PM
:rolleyes:
-He prefers the company of men.
-Who doesn't?
Captain Stransky:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmdope.com%2FGallery%2FActorsS%2F15430-2464.gif&hash=e8eee74d354e6c1c02573936fb040bf23ae34f63)
At least, not in *ANY* & *ALL* situations...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 26, 2010, 08:17:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 26, 2010, 06:16:13 PM
Seems to be a tad more substance to this one than to most - the "your love was better than that of women" bit
It could be suggesting something spiritual instead of physical.
That, or something like it, has been the majority view through the ages.
Reading the book in context makes it seem somewhat unlikely to me that they were just spiritual pals, but it is of course impossible to say.
To my mind, the better model is their contemporaries - in particular, the Greek notions of the
"best" form of love as that being between males. This should not be too much of a surprise, as David at least spent part of his early life living among the Philistines, who were of Greek extraction, and obviously fitted in well with their culture; so odds are that the warrior culture of the Greeks was no mystery to him.
[Though he was famously an enemy of the Philistines, less well known is taht he fought as a Philistine mercenary when on the run from a jealous King Saul].
Has there been a lot of research on early Semitic sexual morays? I know a lot more about the Indo-Europeans. I do tend to think of early Semitic cultures as less hyper-masculine and open to homoeroticism, but this is likely just due to the fact that I have recurring sexual fantasies involving me and priestesses of Astarte.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 28, 2010, 01:36:13 PM
Has there been a lot of research on early Semitic sexual morays? I know a lot more about the Indo-Europeans. I do tend to think of early Semitic cultures as less hyper-masculine and open to homoeroticism, but this is likely just due to the fact that I have recurring sexual fantasies involving me and priestesses of Astarte.
"Sexual morays" is a truly horrifying typo. Brings to mind a mental image of an amourous eel. ;)
Seriously though, I doubt you will find much of anything that isn't based on an analysis of the Bible itself. Aside from that, there simply isn't anything in the was of written evidence of sexual ... customs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 09:14:57 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 26, 2010, 09:02:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 26, 2010, 08:47:57 PM
Mr. Wiggy, to me, your spiritual love is better than that of a woman. Sounds faggy and closeted.
Religious peeps sometimes talk about God the same way. They're obviously not fucking Him.
Actually that's a common (if, in my view, wrong) interpretation of at least one case of spiritual love:
See also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU5tQkwv0dY
Sounds like the first Bromance to me. :bleeding:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on February 28, 2010, 02:07:32 PM
Sounds like the first Bromance to me. :bleeding:
Oddly, the fifth search result for bromance is:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bromanticism.com%2Fbromance.jpg&hash=8fc738980dfc220b1fad0a71da05ac83113f6ec6)
Bad Bromance?
:lol:
Quote from: Syt on February 28, 2010, 02:09:32 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on February 28, 2010, 02:07:32 PM
Sounds like the first Bromance to me. :bleeding:
Oddly, the fifth search result for bromance is:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bromanticism.com%2Fbromance.jpg&hash=8fc738980dfc220b1fad0a71da05ac83113f6ec6)
"Dammit David, you always get to hold the head."
Quote from: Syt on February 28, 2010, 02:09:32 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on February 28, 2010, 02:07:32 PM
Sounds like the first Bromance to me. :bleeding:
Oddly, the fifth search result for bromance is:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bromanticism.com%2Fbromance.jpg&hash=8fc738980dfc220b1fad0a71da05ac83113f6ec6)
And now we have a pic of David giving Jonathan head. What more proof does anyone need? :P
This thread delivers. :D
Malthus, the interesting thing about those passages is that they were written long after the events. Why did the authors write text that could potentially be considered contrary to the Law? One answer might be that in the oral traditions David did a lot of things that were contrary to the Law. Killed, coveted a wife etc. What is one more transgression? Without including those people would know the written account was incomplete. It is one of the things that fascinates me most about the OT. The characters are made to feel very human. As opposed to the NT which is the story of a God made flesh.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2010, 03:42:00 PM
Malthus, the interesting thing about those passages is that they were written long after the events. Why did the authors write text that could potentially be considered contrary to the Law? One answer might be that in the oral traditions David did a lot of things that were contrary to the Law. Killed, coveted a wife etc. What is one more transgression? Without including those people would know the written account was incomplete. It is one of the things that fascinates me most about the OT. The characters are made to feel very human. As opposed to the NT which is the story of a God made flesh.
Well, that's very true, the Bible certainly isn't reticent about the wrongdoings of the house of David! Quite unlike most other civilizations of the near east, whose official chronicles about their own rulers tend to be more in the nature of pangyrics.
For example, the dying David's instructions to his son Solomon reads exactly like those you would imagine a mafia don issuing (in essence, 'kindly have all my enemies killed after I'm gone')
OTOH, I think that what is at work is two very different situations: the "abomination" of (male) homosexuality in Leviticus may have been specific to imitating the
ritual practices of Judea's neighbours. That's the framing of the passage, where it says 'don't do the filthy practices of the horrible Egyptians and Caananites'. What they may have been warning folks against was acting like Elgabalus - not specifically about what young warriors get up to in army camp. The latter may have been perhaps tolerated - evidence of ancient practice
outside of the priestly writings of the OT is lacking. Certainly, the Greeks saw nothing wrong with that sort of thing, and the Israelites were in pretty close contact with them via the Philistines.
Now, that being noted, it is clear that generations of believers have held that homosexualty is wrong, based on Leviticus. But the same people have no problem accepting that (say) shaving off their beards is okay, because that was a mere ritual matter ...
There is no concrete evidence that David existed. If he did exist, there is little reason to believe that the stories about David and Jonathan are accurate biographical details, as opposed to a literary trope as part of an effort to explain away a dynastic change (and David's apparent betrayal of his liege, Saul). If the question is whether the liteary character of David as portrayed in the Bible is gay, I suppose it could be a matter for discussion, but only if one realizes that is a profoundly anachronistic effort.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2010, 06:19:58 PM
If the question is whether the liteary character of David as portrayed in the Bible is gay, I suppose it could be a matter for discussion, but only if one realizes that is a profoundly anachronistic effort.
I thought it was more like whether or not the literary character had homosexual relations (i.e. relations with members of his own sex).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2010, 06:19:58 PM
There is no concrete evidence that David existed. If he did exist, there is little reason to believe that the stories about David and Jonathan are accurate biographical details, as opposed to a literary trope as part of an effort to explain away a dynastic change (and David's apparent betrayal of his liege, Saul). If the question is whether the liteary character of David as portrayed in the Bible is gay, I suppose it could be a matter for discussion, but only if one realizes that is a profoundly anachronistic effort.
It doesn't matter whether the characters of the OT actually existed or not, for the question of how the writers of the OT felt about certain social or sexual practices portrayed.
Also, it seems odd to me to have produced so profoundly ambiguous a literary character as David, if the intent was to create a mythology to explain or justify the reign. He's certainly not portrayed as a faultless hero - far from it.
Quote from: garbon on February 26, 2010, 08:47:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 07:42:07 PM
As ever the bourgeois fuck everything up.
I was told that my apt looks bougie. :(
People who use bourgeois in casual everyday conversation should be punched in the face. :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 01, 2010, 06:42:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 26, 2010, 08:47:02 PM
I was told that my apt looks bougie. :(
People who use bourgeois in casual everyday conversation should be punched in the face. :mad:
I think people who ever use bougie should be kicked in the nuts.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 01, 2010, 06:42:15 PM
People who use bourgeois in casual everyday conversation should be punched in the face. :mad:
Come over here and try. :mad:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2010, 06:19:58 PM
There is no concrete evidence that David existed.
Joan: Self-loathing Jew?
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2010, 06:55:03 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 01, 2010, 06:42:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 26, 2010, 08:47:02 PM
I was told that my apt looks bougie. :(
People who use bourgeois in casual everyday conversation should be punched in the face. :mad:
I think people who ever use bougie should be kicked in the nuts.
Then we agree. :)
Scary.
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2010, 04:38:20 PMNow, that being noted, it is clear that generations of believers have held that homosexualty is wrong, based on Leviticus. But the same people have no problem accepting that (say) shaving off their beards is okay, because that was a mere ritual matter ...
That's most likely more a case of a selective retrospection than an actual tradition - after all the prejudice against homosexuality (or, more precisely, any sexual behaviour that does not turn us on) is a psycho-biological phenomenon. So it is not inconceivable that the successor generations simply put a greater emphasis on practices they found repulsive than something that does not inspire a visceral reaction like this (like mixing fabrics, or shaving beards).
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2010, 06:30:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2010, 06:19:58 PM
There is no concrete evidence that David existed. If he did exist, there is little reason to believe that the stories about David and Jonathan are accurate biographical details, as opposed to a literary trope as part of an effort to explain away a dynastic change (and David's apparent betrayal of his liege, Saul). If the question is whether the liteary character of David as portrayed in the Bible is gay, I suppose it could be a matter for discussion, but only if one realizes that is a profoundly anachronistic effort.
It doesn't matter whether the characters of the OT actually existed or not, for the question of how the writers of the OT felt about certain social or sexual practices portrayed.
Also, it seems odd to me to have produced so profoundly ambiguous a literary character as David, if the intent was to create a mythology to explain or justify the reign. He's certainly not portrayed as a faultless hero - far from it.
Exactly the point. I started a thread over on the server a couple years back after reading Finkelstein's book http://books.google.ca/books?id=uH7Kg9yEc7AC&dq=david+and+solomon&source=bl&ots=h_sU1FmVqw&sig=PiiXrXn0GXzjMXglAAzIyx3i3j8&hl=en&ei=R2iMS6ysJpOuswOBifi_Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBg so I wont retrace those steps.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2010, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2010, 04:38:20 PMNow, that being noted, it is clear that generations of believers have held that homosexualty is wrong, based on Leviticus. But the same people have no problem accepting that (say) shaving off their beards is okay, because that was a mere ritual matter ...
That's most likely more a case of a selective retrospection than an actual tradition - after all the prejudice against homosexuality (or, more precisely, any sexual behaviour that does not turn us on) is a psycho-biological phenomenon. So it is not inconceivable that the successor generations simply put a greater emphasis on practices they found repulsive than something that does not inspire a visceral reaction like this (like mixing fabrics, or shaving beards).
I'm a bit skeptical of assigning overmuch uniformity to human sexual behavior over time. There is so much cultural variation that it seems what is considered visceral to one cultural background means nothing to another.
Consider the visceral reaction of repulsion re: eating pigs, common in some places - because pigs are associated with filth. It is understandable but, obviously, not shared by all cultures.
I'm not convinced that a 'repulsion' of homosexuality is any more natural or inevitable; certainly it was not shared by ancient cultures existing at the same time as the OT (the OT
states as much! Though certainly not an unimpeachable source, it is true that other ancient cultures did not find homosexuality an 'abomination' as stated in Leviticus - which states 'don't do what the filthy foreigners do'):
QuoteAnd the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes.
...
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
...
"Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
...
So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them. I am the LORD your God."
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2010, 06:27:34 PM
I thought it was more like whether or not the literary character had homosexual relations (i.e. relations with members of his own sex).
Sex is a physical act, and hence cannot be engaged in by literary constructs.
There is no sex scene between the two in the narrative if that is the question.
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2010, 06:30:28 PM
It doesn't matter whether the characters of the OT actually existed or not, for the question of how the writers of the OT felt about certain social or sexual practices portrayed.
If that is the question, however, then that requires making an attempt to understand the mental world and cultural presuppositions of those writers. That can't be done by applying a straight textual reading, shaded by our own understanding of same sex relationships in the 21st century.
QuoteAlso, it seems odd to me to have produced so profoundly ambiguous a literary character as David, if the intent was to create a mythology to explain or justify the reign. He's certainly not portrayed as a faultless hero - far from it.
That is typical of all ancient mythology and legend literature - think of the origin and antics of the Greek gods, or the stories of Hercules or Gilgamesh. Even where ancient literature has a propagandistic purpose, it doesn't and can't be expected to operate like modern propaganda. David is a kind of archetype, and the narrative associated with him follows certain patterns: e.g., the young man who is popular and full and promise ousts the legitimate heir, bringing about a golden age - however, eventually he falls into sin (due to involvement with a woman or women), and finally he ages into decrepitude as the kingdom falls into strife (this is story of both David and Solomon - there are other parallels in the two narratives as well)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2010, 06:19:58 PM
There is no concrete evidence that David existed. If he did exist, there is little reason to believe that the stories about David and Jonathan are accurate biographical details, as opposed to a literary trope as part of an effort to explain away a dynastic change (and David's apparent betrayal of his liege, Saul). If the question is whether the liteary character of David as portrayed in the Bible is gay, I suppose it could be a matter for discussion, but only if one realizes that is a profoundly anachronistic effort.
There's no concrete evidence that a lot of people existed though we generally believe they did.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 11:05:16 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2010, 06:19:58 PM
There is no concrete evidence that David existed. If he did exist, there is little reason to believe that the stories about David and Jonathan are accurate biographical details, as opposed to a literary trope as part of an effort to explain away a dynastic change (and David's apparent betrayal of his liege, Saul). If the question is whether the liteary character of David as portrayed in the Bible is gay, I suppose it could be a matter for discussion, but only if one realizes that is a profoundly anachronistic effort.
There's no concrete evidence that a lot of people existed though we generally believe they did.
Correction. You generally believe they did. Most others are either indifferent or accept all the stories as myth.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2010, 10:57:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2010, 06:30:28 PM
It doesn't matter whether the characters of the OT actually existed or not, for the question of how the writers of the OT felt about certain social or sexual practices portrayed.
If that is the question, however, then that requires making an attempt to understand the mental world and cultural presuppositions of those writers. That can't be done by applying a straight textual reading, shaded by our own understanding of same sex relationships in the 21st century.
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.
Quote
That is typical of all ancient mythology and legend literature - think of the origin and antics of the Greek gods, or the stories of Hercules or Gilgamesh.
Not necessarily figures used for ancient propaganda, though.
QuoteEven where ancient literature has a propagandistic purpose, it doesn't and can't be expected to operate like modern propaganda. David is a kind of archetype, and the narrative associated with him follows certain patterns: e.g., the young man who is popular and full and promise ousts the legitimate heir, bringing about a golden age - however, eventually he falls into sin (due to involvement with a woman or women), and finally he ages into decrepitude as the kingdom falls into strife (this is story of both David and Solomon - there are other parallels in the two narratives as well)
Sounds like a variation on Joseph Campbell's "hero with a thousand faces". 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. 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.
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).
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 01, 2010, 07:06:26 PM
Come over here and try. :mad:
Oh it's already been broughten. :grr:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2010, 10:33:47 AM
Sex is a physical act, and hence cannot be engaged in by literary constructs.
There is no sex scene between the two in the narrative if that is the question.
:moon:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2010, 11:49:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 11:05:16 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2010, 06:19:58 PM
There is no concrete evidence that David existed. If he did exist, there is little reason to believe that the stories about David and Jonathan are accurate biographical details, as opposed to a literary trope as part of an effort to explain away a dynastic change (and David's apparent betrayal of his liege, Saul). If the question is whether the liteary character of David as portrayed in the Bible is gay, I suppose it could be a matter for discussion, but only if one realizes that is a profoundly anachronistic effort.
There's no concrete evidence that a lot of people existed though we generally believe they did.
Correction. You generally believe they did. Most others are either indifferent or accept all the stories as myth.
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 02:02:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 02:08:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 02:08:34 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2010, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 02:02:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2010, 12:50:47 PM
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.
QuoteSounds 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).
QuoteHowever, 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.
QuoteMoreover, 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.
QuoteIn 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.)
Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2010, 02:21:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2010, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 02:02:19 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 02, 2010, 02:20:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 02:08:34 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2010, 02:29:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2010, 02:21:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2010, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 02:02:19 PM
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.
^_^
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2010, 08:27:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 02:02:19 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2010, 02:31:34 PM
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 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2010, 02:29:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2010, 02:21:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2010, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 02:02:19 PM
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? :P 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 04:22:04 PM
Oh, how do we know that? :P
The smilie there means you are kidding right?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 02, 2010, 02:20:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 02:08:34 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
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?)
Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2010, 06:08:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2010, 06:08:49 PM
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).
QuoteThere 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.
QuoteTo 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2010, 06:35:53 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 03, 2010, 10:17:16 AM
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".
QuoteThere 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.
Quote
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.
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
Quote
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.
QuoteNot 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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 03, 2010, 11:10:33 AM
Quote
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2010, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
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:
QuoteBecause 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2010, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 04:26:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2010, 01:23:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2010, 04:26:05 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2010, 01:14:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2010, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 03, 2010, 11:10:33 AM
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.
QuoteThere 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 03, 2010, 03:48:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
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.
Quote[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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 04:53:30 PM
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.
QuoteWhile 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.
Quoteand 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2010, 03:46:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2010, 01:14:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2010, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 03, 2010, 07:05:02 PM
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:
QuoteBecause 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteYour 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2010, 07:34:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2010, 03:46:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2010, 01:14:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2010, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2010, 10:04:22 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 10:24:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2010, 10:04:22 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2010, 10:56:47 AM
No archaeological evidence, no. Nor is there necessarily going to be, as political events do not, in and of themselves, necessarily leave archaeological evidence.
JR put it best. We do have archeological evidence of the tribes being united - just not by the House of David and not in that time period. So your point that poltical events do not nessarily leave archeological evidence (while perhaps accurate in other contexts) does not hold for the point we are discussing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 11:40:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2010, 10:56:47 AM
No archaeological evidence, no. Nor is there necessarily going to be, as political events do not, in and of themselves, necessarily leave archaeological evidence.
JR put it best. We do have archeological evidence of the tribes being united - just not by the House of David and not in that time period. So your point that poltical events do not nessarily leave archeological evidence (while perhaps accurate in other contexts) does not hold for the point we are discussing.
To which I would repeat: absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. The fact that there are more prominent remains of later Kings does not mean that there were not earlier kings. Particularly as the alleged site of the royal city - Jerusalem - is a site that was *extensively* built on by later peoples and one in which, even today, it is difficult to do any work for poilitical reasons (e.g., hysterical religious folk trying to kill you if you mess about on the Temple Mount).
Take this situation - until the discovery of this stele, there was no evidence that the title "House of David" was ever used contemporaneously with the Omrides. That, surely, changes the narrative, no?
Fact is, the evidence for those Omrides we *do* know about is scanty in the extreme. A handful of comments, mostly on comemerative stele carved by their enemies to celebrate victories over them; and attribution of some building remains to the time-period in which it is assumed they ruled.
Similarly, ancient figures of much greater prominence than David are only known from random survivals - for example take Narmur, uniter of ancient egypt (possibly); a wine jar with his name, a palette ... not much really.
What you are not appreciating is that actual archaeological evidence for the existance of ancient persons is rare. So is literary evidence. The Bible is most unusual in its survival.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2010, 12:10:45 PM
To which I would repeat: absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
It is not the same, but it raises an issue of historiographical method: in making claims about history, does one restrict oneself to claims that have some firm basis in hard evidence, or does one reach and speculate to try to fill in large gaps in our knowledge? Both are viable approaches and have their justifications; my personal tendency is toward the former.
QuoteTake this situation - until the discovery of this stele, there was no evidence that the title "House of David" was ever used contemporaneously with the Omrides. That, surely, changes the narrative, no?
It tells us that the dynastic name David for the Kingdom of Judah was in use from around the time at that kingdom's likely origin. No more, no less.
QuoteWhat you are not appreciating is that actual archaeological evidence for the existance of ancient persons is rare. So is literary evidence. The Bible is most unusual in its survival.
it would be unusual if it was created contemporaneously with the events it described. Not quite so unusual if one postulates that it was first set down in something resembling its current format in the late 7th century and completed in the late Hellenistic era.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2010, 12:10:45 PM
Particularly as the alleged site of the royal city - Jerusalem - is a site that was *extensively* built on by later peoples and one in which, even today, it is difficult to do any work for poilitical reasons (e.g., hysterical religious folk trying to kill you if you mess about on the Temple Mount).
It's true that the Temple Mount is very hard to work on (and under), and there very well could be relevant finds there (though note that the temple is ascribed to Solomon, not David). But the rest of the land of Israel and Jerusalem itself has to be one of the most heavily and extensively excavated and analyzed places on the face of the earth. It is theoretically possible that David's kingdom consisted of one single monumental structure now hidden under the Temple Mount, surrounded by a material cultural wasteland, but it is not the most convincing working hypothesis to adopt.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 10:19:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2010, 07:34:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2010, 03:46:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2010, 01:14:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2010, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
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.
The pagan Christ by that Harpur fellow made the claim that the name of Jesus in the form of Iusa dates back 18,000 years in Egypt. Do you agree with this, claim it's not actually in the book, or what.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 02:00:25 PM
The pagan Christ by that Harpur fellow made the claim that the name of Jesus in the form of Iusa dates back 18,000 years in Egypt.
Really?
Link?
I didnt think there was any writing going back 18000 years.
I dont remember that being a claim. He did claim that Christainity was heavily influenced by Pagan religions including Egyptian religious beliefs. Hardly shocking I would think given the cultural influences at time.
Googling tells me Harpur makes the claim on page 5 (second-hand info).
For instance:
" A failure to anchor the argument in sound historical research leads to assertions such as on page 5 that there was a 'Jesus' in Egyptian lore as early as 18,000 BCE--astounding when one considers the fact that the earliest pre-historic sites in Egypt date to about the 6th millennium BCE with the familiar Egyptian civilization beginning about 3500 BCE."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_12_28/ai_n6102291/
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 02:06:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 02:00:25 PM
The pagan Christ by that Harpur fellow made the claim that the name of Jesus in the form of Iusa dates back 18,000 years in Egypt.
Really?
Link?
http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html
Doesn't give the 18,000 years part, but the specific Iusa -> Jesus from Egypt claim is made.
From a review:
http://www.straight.com/article/the-pagan-christ-by-tom-harpur
QuoteHarpur was a Rhodes scholar and divinity professor, so it's odd to find his book chock full of factual flubs. He reports that the Egyptian name Iusu, supposedly the root of Jesus , can be traced to 18,000 BC. But writing doesn't predate the fourth millennium. A god crucified was depicted around 300 BC, he writes. The image dates from six centuries later; regarding Christian origins, the BC/AD thing isn't a fussy detail. The list of mistakes is longer than this review.
There are other sources coveringing his other moonbat claims.
lol
Quote from: ulmont on March 04, 2010, 02:12:37 PM
Doesn't give the 18,000 years part, but the specific Iusa -> Jesus from Egypt claim is made.
I do recall the Iusa name link being used. But 18,000? Sounds like the second hand critic is as bad as Raz's quesitoning.
As I said, I doubt anyone was even writing 18,000 years ago. There is some debate now about whether Egyptians began writing before Sumerians but I dont think anyone claims that happened 18,000 years ago.
But I will go look on page 5 when I get a chance....
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 02:13:36 PM
From a review:
http://www.straight.com/article/the-pagan-christ-by-tom-harpur
QuoteHarpur was a Rhodes scholar and divinity professor, so it's odd to find his book chock full of factual flubs. He reports that the Egyptian name Iusu, supposedly the root of Jesus , can be traced to 18,000 BC. But writing doesn't predate the fourth millennium. A god crucified was depicted around 300 BC, he writes. The image dates from six centuries later; regarding Christian origins, the BC/AD thing isn't a fussy detail. The list of mistakes is longer than this review.
There are other sources coveringing his other moonbat claims.
The Georgia straight?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 02:16:03 PM
As I said, I doubt anyone was even writing 18,000 years ago.
Well there was one. Ancient legends speak of an old man with questionable personal hygiene sitting in a cave painting symbols on the walls while muttering to himself "strawman" and "dogpile".
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 02:17:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 02:13:36 PM
From a review:
http://www.straight.com/article/the-pagan-christ-by-tom-harpur
QuoteHarpur was a Rhodes scholar and divinity professor, so it's odd to find his book chock full of factual flubs. He reports that the Egyptian name Iusu, supposedly the root of Jesus , can be traced to 18,000 BC. But writing doesn't predate the fourth millennium. A god crucified was depicted around 300 BC, he writes. The image dates from six centuries later; regarding Christian origins, the BC/AD thing isn't a fussy detail. The list of mistakes is longer than this review.
There are other sources coveringing his other moonbat claims.
The Georgia straight?
?
Quote from: The Brain on March 04, 2010, 02:20:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 02:16:03 PM
As I said, I doubt anyone was even writing 18,000 years ago.
Well there was one. Ancient legends speak of an old man with questionable personal hygiene sitting in a cave painting symbols on the walls while muttering to himself "strawman" and "dogpile".
All claims that Grumbler is that old have been disproven.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 02:21:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 02:17:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 02:13:36 PM
From a review:
http://www.straight.com/article/the-pagan-christ-by-tom-harpur
QuoteHarpur was a Rhodes scholar and divinity professor, so it's odd to find his book chock full of factual flubs. He reports that the Egyptian name Iusu, supposedly the root of Jesus , can be traced to 18,000 BC. But writing doesn't predate the fourth millennium. A god crucified was depicted around 300 BC, he writes. The image dates from six centuries later; regarding Christian origins, the BC/AD thing isn't a fussy detail. The list of mistakes is longer than this review.
There are other sources coveringing his other moonbat claims.
The Georgia straight?
?
You should know what you are relying on before you link it. The Georgia Straight is a local rag that reports mainly on the local band scene and is filled with personal adds that would make Grallon blush.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2010, 01:28:22 PM
It's true that the Temple Mount is very hard to work on (and under), and there very well could be relevant finds there (though note that the temple is ascribed to Solomon, not David). But the rest of the land of Israel and Jerusalem itself has to be one of the most heavily and extensively excavated and analyzed places on the face of the earth. It is theoretically possible that David's kingdom consisted of one single monumental structure now hidden under the Temple Mount, surrounded by a material cultural wasteland, but it is not the most convincing working hypothesis to adopt.
Not at all. You are forgetting what I said upthread about the fact that the archaeological evidence for even
known and established Kings of Israel is scanty in the extreme.
People get the impression (not saying you specifically, but it's something I've noticed) that the "tels" of the Near East are like orderly layer cakes - you did down to the "Iron age" layer, and there's the stuff. Look in "level 3b" or whatever and you have King David, or
should.
From my experience, nothing is further from the truth. People lived there, and the best and easiest source of material is - the buildings already there. Everything that can be re-used, is re-used, dug into, incorporated into new buildings, etc. - often, which are promptly burned down by someone else (and anything usable again re-used). Some bits are easy to decern, because the builders used a distinctive "style" - the Herodian walls for example. There is nothing to indicate that David, if he existed, was a builder of originality.
The way bits are dated is often by a combination of relating known styles of pottery found in situ, or by dating destruction layers occuring above where the artifacts are found - this only gives you the youngest date, not the oldest, of course. How can one tell whether "bit of carved stone set into rubble wall' was originally carved for something built by someone named "David"?
A survival of material with writing that can reliably be dated to any one individual - even someone as prominent as a king - is, in fact, most unusual.
The Tel Dan Stele itself is a classic example - broken, used to build something else, which was then burned down.
QuoteThe inscription has been dated to the 9th or 8th centuries BCE. The 8th-century limit is determined by a destruction layer identified with a well-documented Assyrian conquest in 733/732 BCE. Because that destruction layer was above the layer in which the stele fragments were found, it is clear that it took place after the stele had been erected, then broken into pieces which were later used in a construction project at Tel Dan, presumably by Hebrew builders. It is difficult to discern how long before that Assyrian conquest these earlier events took place.
So it is not that the rest of Israel is or was in the time of David "a material cultural wasteland", so much that it is difficult to determine what, if any, remains can be attributed to identify a particular individual. We *do* know from the OT that it is *alleged* that he had his capital city in Jerusalem; if there reliably *lacked* remains datable to him, that would be indicative - if it were not for the fact that Jerusalem was continually subject in spades to the churning I've described above.
I do know that some archaeologists are claiming some remains found there are those of David's time, but I'm somewhat skeptical.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 02:24:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 02:21:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 02:17:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 02:13:36 PM
From a review:
http://www.straight.com/article/the-pagan-christ-by-tom-harpur
QuoteHarpur was a Rhodes scholar and divinity professor, so it's odd to find his book chock full of factual flubs. He reports that the Egyptian name Iusu, supposedly the root of Jesus , can be traced to 18,000 BC. But writing doesn't predate the fourth millennium. A god crucified was depicted around 300 BC, he writes. The image dates from six centuries later; regarding Christian origins, the BC/AD thing isn't a fussy detail. The list of mistakes is longer than this review.
There are other sources coveringing his other moonbat claims.
The Georgia straight?
?
You should know what you are relying on before you link it. The Georgia Straight is a local rag that reports mainly on the local band scene and is filled with personal adds that would make Grallon blush.
You may have noticed that I can't link the pages of the book directly to this website. So I have to rely on second hand sources.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2010, 02:16:03 PM
Quote from: ulmont on March 04, 2010, 02:12:37 PM
Doesn't give the 18,000 years part, but the specific Iusa -> Jesus from Egypt claim is made.
I do recall the Iusa name link being used. But 18,000? Sounds like the second hand critic is as bad as Raz's quesitoning.
Actually, now that I reread my link (History News Network), it does give the 18,000 years claim.
If the Jews could build mystical things like the Ark and part entire oceans with but a wave of the hand, why did they not use these super powers in WW2?
The only person who even tried was Magneto and all he did was fuck up a fence.
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 02:37:57 PM
If the Jews could build mystical things like the Ark and part entire oceans with but a wave of the hand, why did they not use these super powers in WW2?
The only person who even tried was Magneto and all he did was fuck up a fence.
Didn't have to. There are still Jews around, but Nazi Germany is gone.
The cream of Jewish society is ashes, my friend. That isn't a victory.
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 02:45:02 PM
The cream of Jewish society is ashes, my friend. That isn't a victory.
Survival is a victory for the Jewish people. It's a victory they've enjoyed when their enemies have not. In the end, it's the one that really counts.
I wasn't aware that Germans, Neo Nazis, Anti-semites or even Persians had disappeared from the world, old boy.
For that matter, the Egyptians seem to express a desire to collect their wayward slaves.
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 02:37:57 PM
If the Jews could build mystical things like the Ark and part entire oceans with but a wave of the hand, why did they not use these super powers in WW2?
Who do you think designed the atom bomb?
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 02:45:02 PM
The cream of Jewish society is ashes, my friend. That isn't a victory.
The cream of Jewish society is in New York.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2010, 02:32:24 PM
I do know that some archaeologists are claiming some remains found there are those of David's time, but I'm somewhat skeptical.
There is a stone wall in Jerusalem discovered several years ago and attibuted by the finder to the Davidic period. The dating is contested, and the claim is complicated by what appear to be political motivation (the dig was sponsored by a political think tank).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2010, 03:28:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2010, 02:32:24 PM
I do know that some archaeologists are claiming some remains found there are those of David's time, but I'm somewhat skeptical.
There is a stone wall in Jerusalem discovered several years ago and attibuted by the finder to the Davidic period. The dating is contested, and the claim is complicated by what appear to be political motivation (the dig was sponsored by a political think tank).
Yup, my point exactly.
There may have been a davidic citadel on the site, but if so, it was probably carted away to build subsequent structures; even if it wasn't it will be hard to tell.
Without some sort of engraving, it is extremely difficult or even impossible to state with any certainty that "rubble backed wall X" was built by, or even in the time of, historic figure Y - unless the builders used some sort of unique style (as Herod did).
All you can do is to attempt to date it, and this is often not an easy task.