Keryg 2021: King David and Jerusalem
Rufus T Firefly
Shipmate
I have just listened to a podcast from Dan Snow's HistoryHit, all about King David:
How and Why History - King David
The particular issues it raises are:
Although evidence outside the Bible for David's existence is very sparse, I certainly wouldn't follow the ultra sceptical line that I have seen a few people take, claiming that the stories of David are simply myths. It seems to me that he is so rooted in the Old Testament that the chances of him being the figment of the imagination are extremely slight. As the podcast points out, there is more the Bible about David than about Moses or even Jesus.
I am interested though in the other two questions. The OT accounts seem to give slightly varying ways in which David came to power and although we usually harmonise them, there are signs of underlying differences of views.
As the podcast points out, one of the difficulties of assessing the history of Jerusalem is that because it has been in continuous use for so many centuries, AND been a holy site for three main faiths, there have been limited opportunities to do the kinds of archaeological work that might shed light on Jerusalem before and during the time of Jesus.
I guess that part of this comes down to a vital question of how much can we rely on the Biblical accounts as a historical source.
How and Why History - King David
The particular issues it raises are:
- Can we be certain that King David ever really existed?
- What can we know about how he came to take the throne?
- Why did he choose Jerusalem as his "capital city"?
Although evidence outside the Bible for David's existence is very sparse, I certainly wouldn't follow the ultra sceptical line that I have seen a few people take, claiming that the stories of David are simply myths. It seems to me that he is so rooted in the Old Testament that the chances of him being the figment of the imagination are extremely slight. As the podcast points out, there is more the Bible about David than about Moses or even Jesus.
I am interested though in the other two questions. The OT accounts seem to give slightly varying ways in which David came to power and although we usually harmonise them, there are signs of underlying differences of views.
As the podcast points out, one of the difficulties of assessing the history of Jerusalem is that because it has been in continuous use for so many centuries, AND been a holy site for three main faiths, there have been limited opportunities to do the kinds of archaeological work that might shed light on Jerusalem before and during the time of Jesus.
I guess that part of this comes down to a vital question of how much can we rely on the Biblical accounts as a historical source.
Tagged:
Comments
I thought this question had been answered satisfactorily. As history, the bible fails. As a story of faith, cosmology, culture and as mythology, it passes.
I had always wondered why God liked David, considering the things he got up to Then I noticed that when it was pointed out to David that he ha sinned or was about to sin, he repented immediately. Most people take awhile to repent, and many never do. In 1 Samuel 25, when Abigail pointed out to him that it would be wrong to commit wholesale slaughter because of an insult, his response was Many powerful rulers would have killed anyone who told him he had done wrong. David thanked Abigail.
In 2 Samuel 12, when Nathan confronts David with his sin in arranging the death of Uriah, David immediately said, "I have sinned against the Lord"
David did many bad things, but he repented as soon as his sin was pointed out.
No foresight, 20/20 hindsight.
Arranging the death of Uriah was cold and calculating. Not done in the heat of the moment
By the way, David, you sinned against Uriah as well.
At least, that's what the writer(s) want us to think. Another (more cynical) way of seeing this is that certain events couldn't be ignored (murder, adultery etc); they were too well-known by too many people. So if you can't erase them from the record at all, you put a spin on them: "Yes King David did that, but he was sooo sorry afterwards".
For what it is worth, I think that a lot of the stories of David have a ring of truth about them but there is also a certain degree of hagiography going on.
With regards to Jerusalem, I think that there were three main reasons for David choosing it:
a) It was in his existing "sphere of influence" but not so far south as to be remote from the northern area (which would later be the Kingdom of Israel).
b) It was in a stategically key place and already fortified.
c) It had no connection with Saul or his family - like starting with a clean slate.
I would say that the decision to focus the seat of government (& the centre of worship) in Jerusalem shows a keen and calculating mind.
tangent/ Leonard Cohen rocks! /end tangent
And on an added note to relate the tangent back to the subject of the thread, I highly recommend The Secret Chord by Geraldine Brooks for anyone who hasn’t read it.
ISTM the problem was that David was passionate about *everything*--his feelings, his beliefs, people, dancing naked before the daughters of Israel...whatever he was doing at the time.
Maybe partly a wiring/chemistry issue with impulsiveness? Or--and this just occurred to me--maybe some level of bipolar? He seems to have been both depressive and manic.
FWIW.
Have you never done something really bad where part of you knew it was wrong all the way along but part of you had an entire rationale about why it really was the selfless and upright thing to do and shouted down your conscience? Until your local neighbourhood Nathan came along, that is...
(Buried in that long list at the beginning of 1 Chronicles is the detail that Uriah was one of David's mighty men, a close friend. I bet David shed a few genuine tears when he learned of his death.)
(NOT saying that's an excuse. Just the way things happened.)
Given that Samuel/Kings as a whole is virulently anti-monarchist, I don't think the writer has much incentive to spin David positively. IOW, if David comes across to us as a bastard, there may be an element of values dissonance but quite possibly that's what the writer intended.
If you read the I and II Samuel account as story rather than as a supernatural text book and read between the lines a bit, it gives a very convincing account of the politics of a small iron age kingdom, how to manage a loose federation of tribes. Power lies mainly in tribe and especially family, your kin. David takes over from Saul. That marks a shift from one kin group to another. It takes a lot longer than a lot of casual Christian - and possibly Jewish but I can't speak for them - readers notice. David maintains his power largely through his kin, a large family from Bethlehem with a number of forceful males. That explains why Joab was so important and why David was so beholden to him that he couldn't get rid of him.
Yes, there's probably some salesmanship. That's not that unknown in biography now. Nevertheless, read like this, I think the man at the centre comes across as a lot more convincing than I think you are assuming.
It also explains why the federation fell apart after Solomon died. Indeed, it's quite surprising it held together so long. By then, the 'Bethlehem mafia' was no longer what it was. The later generations hadn't all grown up together.
It was also why the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms found so much inspiration in these books. They were describing a world that was very like theirs.
That's why I'm horrified.
Yes, this makes good sense to me. I read a book some time ago that went into the same points in detail, really placing the story firmly in its historic time frame and underlining how David would have had to try and legitimise what was, in effect, a coup. I just can’t remember the book, sadly!
Thou art the man! I've always loved that. Michael Corleone reminds me of David. There is a timelessly epic quality about him, quite unlike anyone else. Especially 1000 BCE.
Yes the more you look the worse it gets. Uriah is also "the Hittite" so perhaps there is some xenophobia in there ("it doesn't matter so much as he's not a real Israelite")?
I read a terrible story about a Rwandan priest who had participated in the 1990s massacres and had essentially suspended his spiritual life for a year or two during that time, including not praying, on the grounds that "I had the feeling that this was something it would be better not to discuss with God".
But then Saul repented after Samuel pointed out that he shouldn't have made the sacrifice himself, but that was NO GOOD.
Nathan tells David that his son will die because of his (David's) sin. David repents, but the son dies anyway, so David gives up on the repentance. Moral: if you tell people 'Bad things will happen to your family because of your sin', this will backfire on you in the long run.
- He was a real person who existed much as portrayed in various First Testament sources
- He was an amalgam of several Israelite warlords/kings later harmonized/syncretized into a single individual
- He was a later invention representing/explaining a past golden age of royal/national consolidation in pre-First Temple Israel
Any of these arguments are plausible. They work for King Arthur, too. Or Agamemnon, who 'dates' from roughly the same period as King David.-
-
A mix of geopolitical pragmatism and local politics.
The pragmatism: Jerusalem sits at a "choke point" across north-south trade routes and at the western terminus of east-west trade routes. Plus it's got the kind of hills that work very well for building bronze age fortifications on top of.
The politics: Jerusalem isn't part of any of the Israelite tribes' traditional tribal lands and is thus "neutral territory", much like the federal district in the U.S. is not part of any state.
You get the impression that the biblical account is of a Napoleon like figure. [And then when you don't find that in history to declare that a contradiction, when as Enoch/Doone say the picture is much more clan like.]
In American terms the high point of the account is as if someone freed Rhode Island and Connecticut from a New Jersey incursion to the point New Jersey, Mass and New Hampshire went out their way to please them, and then after two generations (73 Yrs) the two states split. And yes the biblical writers had a small view of the world, but they at least recognised the equivalent of the continental US.
In British terms, we're talking about king Alfred if his achievement were to unite Wessex (so Cenwahl is possibly a better actual match).
And when it comes to David himself, even that is very transitory with 5 conflicts occuring inside the boundary (independence from Philistia, Saul, Judea v Israel, Absolomon, Coronation issues)
[In that sense (if I'd seen it) the TV show about him in modern times is probably more realistic than our imaginations are]
Moreover, the Jerusalem David ruled over was actually no more than a small village.
In the podcast I referred to, it was stated that the population of Jerusalem during David's reign was about 1500. I am afraid that I don't know how reliable that estimate is.
That is the estimate I also recall. Rather than being the King of a United Empire, David was basically a ruler of a small fiefdom as it were.
I suspect that even if this united Kingdom hadn't split into two after Solomon, it would still have had little chance of long-term prosperity, being squeezed between Egypt and Assyria. If memory serves me right (which it may well not do!), David's (and Israel's) rise happened at a time when Egypt was less active and so less likely to swat down any potential threats.
So King Arthur, with a different story? But some similar patterns.
(Leaving aside the question of whether either existed, and how factual the stories are. I don't have a problem with either/both of them existing.)
I'm sure they both appreciate it.
--"The Egyptian Origins of King David and the Temple of Solomon Paperback – February 5, 2019
by Ahmed Osman" (available from That Big Rivery Place).
One paragraph from the description:
--Given the books shown in the "Customers also viewed" section, by this author and others, I suspect people who aren't comfortable considering alt theories might want to skip this--even reading the listing. Sometimes, it can be hard to see things the same way afterwards, even if you think the material is totally ridiculous. And some of the books are alt theories about Jesus.
FWIW. Fair warning.
King David as a pseudo-historical figure who probably existed but the stories ascribed to him are composites of things he did, things others did and things created to tell a particular story is a reputable position (as mentioned, similar to how the stories of Arthur probably developed around a potentially real post-Roman Welsh war leader - including the adoption of that Welsh figure into English mythology as a king of Britain even though there's no evidence of a single British kingdom anywhere around that time). To translocate those stories back five centuries and into an entirely different cultural context is simply barking.
If it were only identifying "Temple David" (or if it gets completed Solomon?) or "Palace David" with a given Pharaoh, I still don't think it would work, but I wouldn't be surprised if I were surprised by the arguments.
Mr. Osman is from Egypt, and centers his theories in Egypt. I figure there's a good chance he's a Muslim, in which case Ishmael would be important to him. (Abraham was the father of both the Jewish and Arab races (or whatever proper wording you prefer) through Isaac and Ishmael.)
It's also possible Mr. Osman worships the old Egyptian deities and culture, whether literally or figuratively. And there *might* be some anti-Jewish feeling involved, too. If he believes--or was taught--that Jews were/are lower than his Egyptian ancestors, he might have decided "Ok, I like David, but he can't possibly be theirs, so who was he? Hmmm...he does sound kind of like Tuthmosis", and researched from there.
BTW, "Tuthmosis" has me wondering if Moses picked up his name during his time with the Egyptians.
I mean obviously he did get his name when in Egypt (we are talking about going out not going in, so the only other option would be if he changed his name in exile or exodus, in which case you'd expect it to be either foreign or titular, and the text suggests named as a child)
In Exodus it's ambiguous whether his birth mother or adopted mother name him in the NIV.
The NIV commentry makes the point that the name is Egyption (is born), but [separately it also notes that the text] makes a hebrew pun in the naming (drew out).
Not necessarily pertinent, but I cross-reference things.