ralfellis

.
I fully understand the Mythicist position, because at the surface level it would appear that the Old and New Testaments were written on Mars - for little or nothing in these ancient texts tallies with the real historical world.

But has enough effort been applied to finding these biblical characters in the historical record? (I have a feeling that many people don't want to find them, as each side of this debate is more than happy with the status quo.)

Take King David, for example. If I could show you a 10th century BC king of 'Zion', who was identified with a Star and a City, and who may have been called Duad, would that undermine the Mythicist position? Or has Mythicism developed a creed and a doctrine that is every bit as inflexible as Judaeo-Christianity?


Just wonderin'.


.

Cheerful Charlie

Mythicism is the position that Jesus may not have actually existed and was mythical in the same sense as Santa Claus.
Issues such as the existence of Daviid or Moses and other Old testament figures is usually denoted as an issue of biblical minimalism. Questioning the issue of old testament accuracy and trustworthiness.

David in the old testament has associated with him obvious mythology that is also contradictory, for example how he came to be known to king Saul. The problem is to disentangle truth from fiction in the Bible.

Archaeology has disposed of any claims that the tales of Moses, Joshua et al are possibly historical. With David and Solomon, its an open questio of how trustworthy the Bible is as far as history, when we jettison the obvious mythological elements of the Bible traditions.

Archeology can settle nothing about the existence or not of Jesus, and the gospels are not trustworthy as seen by their contradictions et al. We have no outside mentions of Jesus beyond the NT materials and such, written long after he was dead. The mythicist position points out we cannot even prove Jesus existed, much less tell us anything about him.

Personally, I believe he did, that he was born and lived in Nazareth, claimed to be a prophet and preached the idea that the world was soon to come to an end and would be replaced with a better world, an idea that can be found in the OT prophets. He became a disruptive presence and was executed, All else is untrustworthy.

Cheerful Charlie

Ratel

I think the OT version of that is Minimalism. I don't think anyone who holds that position would deny inscriptional evidence if it existed and was verifiable ( preferably in situ and not found in a curiosity shop)

Having said that, even if there was a person named "David" in Judea circa 1000 BC it seems hard to fathom that he created the empire attributed to him in the Bible. It's even worse for Solomon, who almost certainly is a legendary rather than historical figure. There simply aren't any grandiose projects from that period nor any evidence for a vast Davidic/Solomonic empire.

MrMacSon

The Historical Method provides a reasonably objective methodology for assessing historical scenarios.

It includes reference to determining sources and the primacy of those sources, especially how close they are to events or people of the times-

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

http://knowledgecenter.unr.edu/help/using/primary.aspx

There do not appear to be any primary sources for the events or peoples featured at the start of Christianity.

ralfellis

Perhaps I don't understand Mythicism then - I thought it applied equally to all the biblical accounts. (!?) We can come onto JC later, if you like, but I wanted to explore the United Monarchy first.

.

ralfellis

And that was the point I wanted to explore (... to explore as an Atheist interested in history, not as a believer interested in substantiating a creed).

As you say, the empire mentioned for the United Monarchy could not have existed in Judaea at this time, as the economy there could not support it. So if the OT account is in any way true, then either:

a. There has been exaggeration.
b. We are looking in the wrong era.
c. We are looking in the wrong location.

I think the problem is point c. - we are looking in the wrong location. Instead of trying to find King David in Zion (Jerusalem) we should be looking in Zoan (Tanis).


And if we explore Tanis we find there a new 'United Monarchy'** whose king may well have been called Duad (Dud or David)*** A king who was closely associated with a Star (the Star of Dud or David) and a City (the City of Dud or David).

This king was, of course, Pa-Seba-Khaienuit (My Star rises over my City), or Psusennes, and this new royal line did indeed end up ruling both Zoan (Tanis) and Zion (Judaea).

This is, of course, a monarchy that would easily suit the descriptionsnof wealth, influence and grandure that are ascribed to the United Monarchy - the kind of monarch who could command tribute from Ethiopia (actually, the Queen of Sheba was from Upper Egypt).

.


And while this association may seem bizare and unlikely, at first, it is the sort of idea that grows on you. Because we then find that:

King David's daughter was Machah Tamar
Psusennes' daughter was Makhare MuTamhat

King David's army commander was Joab
Psusennes' army commander was En Tchoeb En Djed

King David's architect was called Hiram Abif
Psusennes' architect was called Heru'm Atif

King David was associated with a Star and a City
Psusennes was associated with a Star and a City

King David's capital was Zion
Psusennes' capital was Zoan



The question is, therefore, is the big cover-up not the possibility that King David was fictional, but the surprising possibility that he and the rest of the United Monarchy were Egyptian.


** (uniting Upper and Lower Egypt)

*** The star glyph is often translated as Seba, but it can also be Duad.

Tenorikuma

More likely we find our "David" in Seleucid or Macabbean Palestine.

ralfellis

But why look some 800 years too late?

Why not go a short distance to the southwest in the very same era as King David, and find a King David (Duad) living there - a king whise descendents ended up rulling Judaea too.


Besides, this Egyptian King David also had the same ancestors as the biblical King David.

B = Biblical
H = Historical - ancestors of Psusennes.

B .. Ram,
H .. Ram- -esses (Ramesses XI),

B .. Ammin- -nad -dab,
H .. Amen- -Nes -ba -neb -djed,

B .. Nah- -shon,
H .. Amenem -Ne -shu,

B .. S- -almon,
H .. Si- -amun,

B .. B- -Oaz,
H .. Bas- -Uas- -orkon,

B .. Obed,
H .. Amenem- -Opet



.

Tenorikuma

Because there's nothing of historical value to the tenth century BC in the DH. Much of it is anachronistic to any time earlier than the fourth century, so that is where we should look in dating it.

The only united monarchy that ever existed was Macabbean. And before that, you had a rivalry between Seleicid Samaria and Ptolemaic Judea. Ring any bells?

Chili

In Catholicism Saint Nicholas is for Children what Christ is for Adults, and so Santa should not be for adults and Christ should not be for children, from which follows, obviously, in the America I know they have adulterated both, and does that not sound like Hollywood?