gstafleu

Well, yes. But do you have a suggestion as to what a historical core might contribute?

Gerard Stafleu

Chris Weimer

A better chronology of the events that took place in Judah? A better understanding of what life was like in Judah at the time?

RED DAVE

This isn't a derail, I hope, but a parallel question. In some book I read awhile ago, but which my leaky memory doesn't recall, it was claimed that the record of David's reign, as recorded in Samuel and Kings, was a unique, coherent historical record. And I have to admit that it makes for a pretty good yarn: David defecting to the Philistines, the murder of Abner, adultery with Bathsheeba, etc.

Now assuming that all this didn't happen, what we have is a really good historical novel/myth. What is the precedent for such a work of this quality being produced as early as, say, the 7th Century BCE? Are there any earlier, similar works?

RED DAVE

gstafleu

Iliad?

andrewcriddle

IMO any interesting Historical David has to be a Yahwist in some meaningful sense.

An early non-Yahwist King of Judah with the name David would not be a Historical David in any sense normally understood.

(IMO a non-Yahwist David is not particularly plausible but you said this thread is about the implications of F&S rather than their accuracy.)

Andrew Criddle

gstafleu

Neither would a David who was an insignificant king of Judah, an ununited kingdom, I would assume? The point here is that there was (according to the inscription) a king called David in Judah, but that is where the similarity with the biblical version ends. In other words: right name, right time (more or less), right place, but nothing else. Why would that not be a Historical David? Would an HD need more of the biblical attributes? If so, which ones, and why?

I'm not too clear on why he would need to be Yahwist, unless you take that whole spiel of how the (nonexistent) united kingdom fell apart due to generalized baalness of the people seriously. Of course the authors of that story, Yahwists themselves, portrayed him as Yahwist, but why couldn't they have made that conveniently up?

BTW, the point that this HD is not very interesting is of course the very one I was making in the OP.

Gerard Stafleu

andrewcriddle

The importance of David in later thought and writing is IMO fundamentally concerned with the idea that later Yahwist kings of Judah could claim the same legitimisation by Yahweh as David supposedly claimed.

If David was not a Yahwist at all, then this breaks down.

IMO the relative insignificance of David as a ruler c 1000 BCE is less important than his significance as the first Yahwist king in Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

gstafleu

Exactly. In other words, the legend is what counts, historicity does not, at least not if the historical person is just a "core." We agree .

Gerard Stafleu

Chili

Yes, but legend bears wittness to reality and that is why the lineage of Jesus in Luke goes past David, past Adam to God. Adam was the supposed son of God but wasn't and therefore the lineage of Jesus goes past David right down to past Adam to God which, in the end, identifies Jesus as a usurper to be crucified.

Jesus is not supposed to be very interesting either and never to be worshipped except as the image to be crucified, as in "crucify him" and have the crucifix on display to show how it is done.

gurugeorge

Check the first paragraph of the OP.