Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 08-05-2006, 02:32 PM

Given that the recent Historic/Mythic Jesus threads seem to have attracted quite a few of our users who don't normally hang around in BC&H, I thought I'd see how far back people generally think the Hebrew Bible can be trusted.

I've placed these people in a rough chronological order, according to the Bible; but some of them (e.g. Job) are not located chronologically by the Bible, so I just placed them where they looked good.

Chris Weimer · 08-05-2006, 03:30 PM

I'd probably go back to Saul, hence my votes for them, but it's certainly not set in stone. I'd be willing to hear ideas to the contrary.

French Prometheus · 08-05-2006, 03:47 PM

I think David is the first historical character of the list. IIRC (from "The Bible Unearthed"), his name was found on ancient seals.

Dean Anderson · 08-05-2006, 03:49 PM

David is an awkward one - there was definitely a "House of David", so presumably there was at some point a "David" whose lineage this was.

However, he almost certainly bore little or no resemblence to the character of the same name portrayed in the Bible.

But whether that counts as "Historical" or "Mythic" is a matter of opinion...

Chris Weimer · 08-05-2006, 04:01 PM

Pervy - by historical I assume we mean that there's a person, probably with the same name, who formed the historical core of that character in later narratives.

French Prometheus · 08-05-2006, 04:03 PM

Yeah, it clearly depends on what is meant by "historical". What percentage of the facts ascribed to him in the Bible have to be true?

ETA: never mind, Chris answered the question.

Anat · 08-05-2006, 05:09 PM

OK, so let's take David. According to Finkelstein and Silberman in 'David and Solomon' the parts of his story that are possibly historical are parts of the story about his rise to power, but not the battle against Goliath, and probably not his activity in Saul's 'court' or his marriage to Saul's daughter. So roughly from 1Samuel 22 to 2Samuel 5, as well as parts of 2Samuel 21 and 23. There must have been something about the rivalry with the Benjaminites (also present in Judges) but not at all clear how much of the details are historical and contemporary. OTOH much of what is said about David in 1Samuel 16-21 and 2Samuel 6-20 is legendary, mostly anachronistic. So does that count as the historical David performing the core of the deeds of Biblical David?

Anat · 08-05-2006, 05:14 PM

As for Solomon, if he is based on a historical person I would say there is likelihood that the only historical details about him in the biblical narrative would be that he was David's heir, maybe after some court dispute, and that he did something to identify the ruling family with the Yahwist cult - maybe build some kind of altar in Jerusalem.

08-05-2006, 09:37 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus_fr

I think David is the first historical character of the list. IIRC (from "The Bible Unearthed"), his name was found on ancient seals.

Hmmm...

Is that really true?

I thought what we had was a stelae which included the word:

BYTDWD
"bethdavid"

Which may be a place name ("house of praise") like Bethlehem ("house of bread"?)

Edit:
Here is what Wiki currently says of the BYTDWD :

Quote:

In ancient Hebrew, to separate words, a word divider represented by a dot would be placed between the letters. For example, the phrase "House of David" would be written as בית•דוד. However, in the Tel Dan Stele we find the phrase ביתדוד, which does not have a word divider. Anson Rainey, defending the reading of "House of David", writes that "a word divider between two components in such a construction is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well-established proper name." Gary Rendsburg provides additional evidence for Rainey's point and points out that the phrase Bit + X is the Aramaean, Assyrian, and Babylonian way of referring to an Aramaean state. (Note: in this pattern, Bit is equivalent to BYT, "house of", and X is usually the name of the person who was regarded as the founder of a dynasty.) Rendsburg adds, "One might even venture that the Assyrian designation Bit-Humri "house of Omri" for the kingdom of Israel reached Assyrian scribes through Aramaean mediation." (Omri was a king of Israel who reigned 844-873 B.C. and founded a dynasty that ruled it through the reigns of four kings. During their reigns, Israel came into military conflict with Assyria. Assyrian records mention King Ahab, Omri's son, as "Ahab the Israelite" who fought against Assyria.)

George Athas proposes that the three extant fragments of the inscription have been placed in a wrong configuration (for the popular configuration, see the figure above). He argues that Fragment A (the largest) should be placed well above Fragments B1 and B2 (which fit together). He also suggests that ביתדוד is actually a reference to Jerusalem, arguing that it is the Aramaic equivalent of "City of David". He also provides evidence for the authenticity of the fragments (called into question by some, such as Russell Gmirkin), and downdates the inscription, proposing that the author is not Hazael, as is popularly touted, but rather his son Bar Hadad.

A minority view is that DWD is the Hebrew rendering of Thoth (pronounced, according to the Ancient Greeks, as Toot - as in Tutmose), thus the expression might refer to a temple of Thoth. The Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen points out that there is no known temple of Thoth in the area.

Others believe that ביתדוד refers to an unknown geographic location.

It has been argued by Thomas L. Thompson that, even if it could be shown that the terms "house of David" and "house of Omri" were used to describe the kings of Judah and Israel at that time, we should not conclude that they saw David and Omri as recent ancestors who had founded dynasties in the modern sense, other interpretations of the term "house of" in this context are possible.

I was quite surprised to see Prof. Finkelstein say (in the recent TV documentary) that David was certain, because of this inscription.

Is it really that certain?

Iasion

jeffevnz · 08-06-2006, 12:54 AM

I'm the one who voted for Noah.

I wouldn't be totally shocked if the story was loosely based on a guy named Ziusudra and an actual flooding of the Euphrates.

It's clear from improbable textual coincidences...

Quote:

"Ziusudra made an opening in the large boat" Ziusudra vi,207
"I opened the window" Gilgamesh XI,135
"Noah opened the window of the ark" Genesis 8:6
"he pried open a portion of the boat" Berossus

"The dove went out and returned" Gilgamesh XI,147
"sent forth the dove and the dove came back to him" Genesis 8:10b-11
"let out the birds and they again returned to the ship" Berossus.

"I sent forth a raven" Gilgamesh XI,152
"Noah... sent forth a raven" Genesis 8:7

"[The gods smelled] the savor" Atrahasis III,v,34
"The gods smelled the sweet savor" Gilgamesh XI,160
"And the Lord smelled the sweet savor..." Genesis 8:21

more here

...that the biblical flood story is related to several earlier Middle Eastern flood stories, the earliest of which is the story about Ziusudra.

Unfortunately, that's the strongest link in the chain.

In the story, Ziusudra is identified as the King of Shuruppak. The Sumerian King List also lists a Ziusudra as King of Shuruppak during a great flood. The Euphrates river is known to have actually flooded and immersed Shuruppak around 2750 BC. That's in the ballpark for when Ziusudra's reign would have been, according to the King List.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28mythology%29

It's a longshot but I think it's worth considering.

View Poll Results: Which of these people were Historical?
Adam	4	6.90%
Noah	4	6.90%
Abraham	4	6.90%
Joseph	4	6.90%
Moses	5	8.62%
Samson	3	5.17%
Job	1	1.72%
Saul	11	18.97%
Solomon	17	29.31%
David	27	46.55%
Hezekiah	23	39.66%
Josiah	28	48.28%
Jeconiah	19	32.76%
None of the above	17	29.31%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

08-05-2006, 02:32 PM	#1
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Enough about Jesus, Are these guys historic or mythic? Given that the recent Historic/Mythic Jesus threads seem to have attracted quite a few of our users who don't normally hang around in BC&H, I thought I'd see how far back people generally think the Hebrew Bible can be trusted. I've placed these people in a rough chronological order, according to the Bible; but some of them (e.g. Job) are not located chronologically by the Bible, so I just placed them where they looked good.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-05-2006, 03:30 PM	#2
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I'd probably go back to Saul, hence my votes for them, but it's certainly not set in stone. I'd be willing to hear ideas to the contrary.

08-05-2006, 03:47 PM	#3
French Prometheus Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: France Posts: 5,839	I think David is the first historical character of the list. IIRC (from "The Bible Unearthed"), his name was found on ancient seals.

08-05-2006, 03:49 PM	#4
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	David is an awkward one - there was definitely a "House of David", so presumably there was at some point a "David" whose lineage this was. However, he almost certainly bore little or no resemblence to the character of the same name portrayed in the Bible. But whether that counts as "Historical" or "Mythic" is a matter of opinion...

08-05-2006, 04:01 PM	#5
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Pervy - by historical I assume we mean that there's a person, probably with the same name, who formed the historical core of that character in later narratives.

08-05-2006, 04:03 PM	#6
French Prometheus Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: France Posts: 5,839	Yeah, it clearly depends on what is meant by "historical". What percentage of the facts ascribed to him in the Bible have to be true? ETA: never mind, Chris answered the question.

08-05-2006, 05:09 PM	#7
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	OK, so let's take David. According to Finkelstein and Silberman in 'David and Solomon' the parts of his story that are possibly historical are parts of the story about his rise to power, but not the battle against Goliath, and probably not his activity in Saul's 'court' or his marriage to Saul's daughter. So roughly from 1Samuel 22 to 2Samuel 5, as well as parts of 2Samuel 21 and 23. There must have been something about the rivalry with the Benjaminites (also present in Judges) but not at all clear how much of the details are historical and contemporary. OTOH much of what is said about David in 1Samuel 16-21 and 2Samuel 6-20 is legendary, mostly anachronistic. So does that count as the historical David performing the core of the deeds of Biblical David?

08-05-2006, 05:14 PM	#8
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	As for Solomon, if he is based on a historical person I would say there is likelihood that the only historical details about him in the biblical narrative would be that he was David's heir, maybe after some court dispute, and that he did something to identify the ruling family with the Yahwist cult - maybe build some kind of altar in Jerusalem.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.