Did anyone watch History Channel's "Battles BC" about King David this weekend?

[Hugabear]

I already knew the Old Testament was pretty bad, but this is the first time I'd seen a good objective, non-religious historical account of Israel's King David. It did not portray him in a good light whatsoever. It's amazing that so many people hold him - and other Old Testament figures - in such high regard. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot would have applauded David. The man was nothing short of a genocidal imperialist, ordering the wholesale slaughter of entire nations in order to prevent them from revolting in the future.

[dbonds]

1. As far as I know there isn't any historical evidence he ever existed.

It is all the mythology of the bible. The historical evidence shows that the Israelites were the remnants of an earlier group called the Canaanites that scattered a bit after a ruling culture fell apart. They reformed and created the mythology of a conquering tribe and promised land.

[aquart]

2. Whose "historical evidence"? Stormfront's?

[Hugabear]

5. How about you provide some concrete solid evidence?

After reading dbond's response, I did a quick Google search. Turns out there really ISN'T any significant evidence of King David. For someone who was supposed to have been such a ruthless leader, constantly going to war with his neighbors, you'd think that there would be plenty of references to him in the records of his neighboring countries and tribes. Yet there is NONE. As far as I can tell, the best that anybody has been able to find so far is a stone carving that refers to the "House of David".

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. That is the point: there is NO historical evidence

We have independent verification of several of the kings of Israel and Judeah, but no record at all of a King David.

[aquart]

17. Who's "we"?

[Hugabear]

21. I would guess he was referring to the archeological world

Do YOU have evidence of the existence of King David that you're hiding in your basement? Because I'm sure the archeological world would love to see that, considering they have next to nothing.

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. That would be "we" in a general sense

There exists records from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian and other sources which give accounts of the Unified Kingdom attributed to kings Saul, David and Solomon, and of its successor states, the kingdoms of Israel in the north and Judah in the south. These records provide the names of rulers who fought against these and other rulers, who received or gave tribute and the kinds of tribute given or received. These records are generally accepted as valid by archaeologists, historians and other scholars. For simplicity of use, I say that "we," in the general sense of those who have an interest in actual history, have independent verification of the existence of these kings.

[dbonds]

20. There have been several documentaries on this topic.

All on Discover, National Geographic, and History Channel (or maybe History Channel International). You can google for many articles on the topic http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS280US313&ei=WfvQScjMKYGItgf2mbHtCQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=Israelites+were+the+Canaanite&spell=1
This is no way anti-Semitic , it is just the historical record. It doesn't diminish the mythology of the bible (note: mythology isn't a pejorative, it is what religions need. Religions use mythology to talk about large concepts and archetypes)

[aquart]

39. And you buy it because it's a "documentary"?? LOL!

[Hugabear]

44. Back for more?

And how, exactly, is questioning David's actual role in ancient history anti-Semitic? Is it also anti-Semitic to suggest that Moses really did not cause the Red Sea to part? Or that any number of events in the Old Testament may not have occurred the way they're described?

You still have not given any evidence to support the Biblical account of King David, and you mock anybody who dares suggest that he may not have been as important as the Old Testament says.

[dbonds]

45. Yes, backed by scholarly research and peer reviewed books.

Kind of the scientific thing you know. But if you want to believe in myths as real history...

Since you think you know better than the scholars, show me proof david did exist.

[Meshuga]

26. What would stormfront have to do with questioning the existence of King David?

Look up the academic work (including Jewish academics) on the topic and you will be surprised.

[Hugabear]

3. Wouldn't surprise me a bit

So much of the Old Testament is just pure myth anyways, with no historical or archeological evidence whatsoever.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. That is beside the point

Most likely, King David is an amalgamation of rulers and folk heroes, much in the same way that King Arthur and Robin Hood are amalgamations and not specific individuals. Nonetheless, the Bible does provide a lot of interesting information on how the Canaanites and related peoples engaged in warfare.

[madrchsod]

24. what?! robin hood is a myth? now my day is ruined..lol

[Odin2005]

27. To play Devil's Advocate: Troy, Mycenae, and the Minoans were once thought to be fairy tales, too.

It the 1800s it was thought that there was no truth at all to any of the Greek heroic legends, then Troy, Mycenae, and Knossos were discovered and excavated, and Hittite records were discovered that gave names of some Mycenaean Greek rulers that matched the legends, and it turned out that descriptions of both Troy and the geography around it given in the Iliad fit what we know very well.

I like what Yale historian Donald Kagan says about the subject, as well as his notion of humorous notion of the "Higher Naiveté"
http://academicearth.org/lectures/the-dark-ages
http://academicearth.org/lectures/the-dark-ages-cont


The main difference between Mycenaean Greece and the Levant of 1000BC is that the Mycenaean sites were generally abandoned when the Mycenaean civilization collapsed in the 1100's BC, while places in the Levant were built over again and again, which makes studying that period far harder.

My guess is that the story of the Exodus is ultimately derived from the fact that Egypt once controlled the area. When Egypt lost control of the region the settled Canaanites fell prey to their nomadic, livestock-herding cousins. The Philistines are the oddballs and are interesting, they seem to have been refugees from the Aegean Sea region fleeing from the collapsing Minoan-Mycenaean and Hittite civilizations, The Etruscans in Italy seemed to have had the same origin.

IMO that whole time period from about 1400BC to 800BC is extremely interesting, it's the age of transition of the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Iron smelting seems to have originally been a Hittite state secret, the source of their military power. But then this technology leaked out to the "barbarian" peoples in the Balkans north of the Mycenaean Greeks, and then all hell broke loose. the fist thing that happened was the demand for copper and tin crashed, causing economic disruption, then these iron-wielding Balkan barbarians invaded Mycenaean Greece and Anatolia, destroying the Minoan-Mycenaean and Hittite civilizations, leading to waves of refugees and barbarian raiders surging out of the Aegean region.

[TechBear_Seattle]

37. The issue is not about cities that stood for centuries

The question at hand is whether certain people presented as individuals really existed or whether they are actually folk heroes, an amalgamation of exploits actually done by several different individuals.

Yes, we know that Troy, Knoossos and Mycenae actually existed. There remains, however, no evidence that Priam, Hector, Achilles or Odyssius ever actually existed. Note that if you are going to claim proof of their existence from what of the Iliad survives, you must also concede the physical, actual existence of Zeus, Athene, Apollo and other figures from the epic as well.

[aquart]

40. Sweetie, those cities disappeared centuries ago.

Hard to believe something existed that doesn't exist.

But then, scientists scoffed that a civilization couldn't disappear in a day like Atlantis was said to, until the tsunami. Now they're finding overlooked tsunami signs all over the place.

As for "Yes, we know that Troy, Knoossos and Mycenae actually existed. There remains, however, no evidence that Priam, Hector, Achilles or Odyssius ever actually existed. Note that if you are going to claim proof of their existence from what of the Iliad survives, you must also concede the physical, actual existence of Zeus, Athene, Apollo and other figures from the epic as well...."

All I can say to that is the world will always be a bewildering place to you. You so completely fail to understand the conventions of literature and history.

[Odin2005]

46. What I was saying is that the legenday figure was porbably not real but he was based on a real...

...person that united the Hebrew tribes and southern Canaanites into a single kingdom, just like Agamemnon, Odysseus, etc, were based on real kings and noblemen that sieged, sacked, and razed Troy.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. I sit corrected

Message boards can make for awkward conversation. :hi:

[Democrats_win]

4. It's hard to read the account in the Bible because it's a little disturbing.

I wish I'd seen the History Channel show but I don't have cable.

After reading just a little from the Bible account, it's hard to feel that David isn't just one of the boys. You know, one of the boys like Bush or a Barbarian. I guess it was during a different time. Hitler was a terrible person during a more civilized time while David lived in a more Barbaric age.

So is it fair to compare him to these other war mongers? After all, his war was about rocks and spears. By the 20th Century, war's weapons makes using them truly immoral.

[Hugabear]

7. Genocide is genocide

When you defeat an enemy, and then round up every male and have them systematically slaughtered, I'd say that's a bit more than just "rocks and spears". In some cases, he ordered the slaughter of ALL men, women, and children.

[aquart]

10. Really? Who didn't?

Come on, give me the name of a king back then who did NOT behave that way? I'm sure dozens are rolling off your blissfully uneducated tongue.

[Hugabear]

14. And how many of those are revered as major religious figures

Are you just deliberately missing the entire point of my post in order to pick a fight?

You really do seem to be spoiling for a fight. Someone pointed out that there is virtually NO evidence that David even existed, let alone that he was a major historical figure, and you immediately attack him bringing up Stormfront.

[aquart]

41. A fight, you flamebaiter?

Damn straight I'll fight on this. But not with a lightweight like you. How ridiculously, pitifully, sadly ignorant you are. I wouldn't know where to begin with a reading list.

But you deliberately ignored my question in favor of insults and attempting to pick a fight. So I feel quite free.

WHAT leader in the ancient world did NOT behave as David did? Find me the Gandhi. True, his people will all have been exterminated but I'm sure there was one. Maybe some dim legend exists. DO A LITTLE RESEARCH.

[aquart]

8. You do realize what trap you're in when you compare David to Hitler?

But then, so many on DU have a vested interest in making the Jewish people non-existent.

[aquart]

6. Leaders who are labeled "great" tend to have a high body count.

And you really sound like ... someone ... who has zero knowledge of ancient history. Or the Bible, come to think of it. The Old Testament does not whitewash David. BUT ancient people had very different requirements for leadership than we do. Which is why people as separated as the Egyptians and the Moche portrayed their leaders lopping off the heads of their enemies. And do a little reading about Alexander the Great, too.

PS: I have yet to see anything "objective" on the History channel.

[Hugabear]

9. Alexander the Great isn't revered as a major religious figure

And yes, I'm well aware that ancient standards were a bit different than ours. But regardless - I still find the concept of ordering the slaughter of women and children a bit troubling, and ESPECIALLY when that person is one of the premier religious figures for several major religions.

[aquart]

15. David is revered as a major religious figure? By whom?

Jews don't deify. Here's another area where your ignorance is mountain high. Moses was a religious figure because he made the covenant. David was the king who united the two
Hebrew kingdoms for our brief moment of glory. He was a very bad boy but he won so we like him.

[Hugabear]

18. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse, and putting words in my mouth

I never said that he was deified. I said he was REVERED. Big fucking difference, and if you can't comprehend that, then we're done debating.

And yes, when I attended church back when I was younger, there were all sorts of hymns and songs that glorified King David, sang about his virtues, etc. As far as religious figures go, he's right up there with Moses and Abraham. Except I don't recall either of those two engaging in systematic genocide.

[Meshuga]

29. Still,

To what level is he revered in your perception? I don't think he is revered by Christians and his flaws are used in biblical studies by Jews as example of how not following a mitzvah can lead to another mitzvah being broken. And the examples are adultery that lead to murder. He is hardly a perfect figure who is whitewashed so he can be revered. Unless you are suggesting David is revered for his brutality.

Moses and Abraham (who are far from flawless in their biblical stories) are very important religious figures since one is the most important prophet who supposedly received the law at sinai and the other is the patriarch.

The closest that David comes to being a religious figure is that the messiah is supposed to be a descendant of his dynasty. But that is not reason for him to be to revered.

Just because you learned of David's flaws via History Channel it doesn't mean religious people are not aware of them and it doesn't mean that it is not discussed by them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. "To what level is he revered in your perception?"

Perhaps to the level that people get their undies in a knot when you suggest there is little or no historical evidence for his existence?

[Meshuga]

32. That doesn't say much

Since the person who is advocating David's existence in this thread doesn't seem to revere him. At least not in this subthread that we are posting under.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Seems like it to me.

If somebody says that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character they don't often get accused of anti-semitism.

[Meshuga]

34. I truly don't understand the charge of antisemitism

A rabbi who agrees that there isn't much evidence of David is not hard to find. One can join a Torah class to see that and I guess he would have to charge these rabbis with antisemitism as well.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. I think it's just a knee jerk reaction to a revered figure.

Like when you tell people that professional wrestling is fake.

[Meshuga]

36. Wrestling is not fake

Did you hear that from Stormfront?

[aquart]

42. Golly, why could that be?

Oh, maybe because David's united kingdom is the historical root of present Israel. I love disingenuity at dawn.

And yes, I consider the OP to be a deliberate piece of anti-semitic disinformation planted here with an agenda. And it offends me.

[Meshuga]

43. Questioning the historicity of David does not negate that the kingdoms existed

In fact, there isn't much showing proof that he did exist except for the tales in the tanakh. It would be interesting if he did exist in my opinion for obvious reasons. But questioning his existence as a historical figure is not antisemitism and okay given the lack of evidence. I would agree it is antisemitism if he the OP is saying that Jews revere David's brutality and his ways in a way to broad brush. But I don't think that was the case or the intention. I think he was just realizing something and he thought religious people in general were ignorant of David as he was before watching a TV show.

The interesting part is that (and that is how I see it) many of the atheists who would naturally question the historicity of biblical figures are the ones defending Jews from antisemitism when real antisemitism is present in real life and on the internets.

[aquart]

38. And don't even ask about David and women! Oy!

[Dorian Gray]

28. Who reveres

King David as a religious figure?

[CTyankee]

11. Thomas Cahill's book "The Gift of the Jews" is an interesting account.

However, it was too brutal for me and I stopped reading it. However, Cahill is a wonderful writer. I have read just about all of his other books (excluding one on Christianity): "Sailing the Wine Dark Sea: why the Greeks matter," "How the Irish Saved Civilization" and "Mysteries of the Middle Ages." The one on ancient Greece was so good I read it twice! I recommend them and folks here might not be as squeamish as I was on "The Gift of the Jews."

[aquart]

19. Cahill is an Irish name?

[CTyankee]

22. Yes, he says he's Irish.

That book may not be what you think. It isn't all schmaltzy about Irish folk. It is a wonderful look into their lusty, pagan origins and the fact that Irish monks at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire moved their manuscripts of Greece and Rome out of the paths of marauding vandals, tribes invading Ireland from the mainland. It's an exciting read. My fave still of course is the one on Greece, a fabulous read.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. It was an interesting series

I got hooked halfway through the accouting of Hannibal's invasion of Rome during the Second Punic War; the battles of the Bible episode came on right after that. I watched the first half or two thirds of that one before I had to go run some errands, but the discussion about Abraham, Moses and the various Judges having been military leaders was quite intruiging, especially the consideration that the "pillar of smoke and fire" was actually a simple but effective tactical weapon that latter accounts told as a divine miracle.

I'm not a war buff, but this series is interesting enough that I might get it for my video collection; HC has some pretty good stuff.

[Meshuga]

25. You don't need the History Channel to see that

The bible does not portray him in a good light as many (if not most) of its major figures. They start good and then they eventually have a downfall.

David was brutal figure and had a lot of blood in his hand so God in the "Pentateuchist" religion/story did not allow him to build the Holy Temple.

I guess all Biblical figures deserve their "E! True Hollywood Story" type of show based on what is in scripture about them. David's show can show his brutality and his lust that made him have sex with a soldier's wife and then sent the guy to front line so the guy would not discover that David had knocked up his wife.

[cynatnite]

31. He sure was a bloodthirsty bastard...

Oh, and let's not forget that god killed David and Bathsheba's baby as punishment for David.