Biblical Genealogies: Who begat them?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Malthus

That isn’t my understanding. Perhaps you could educate me as to your sources for the majority view? I get my impression from Professor Dever’s account - he’s certainly not a Biblical literalist in any shape or form. He describes himself as a Biblical “minimalist”, and yet he’s of the opinion it refers to a dynasty.

Yes, that is his opinion. Kitchen’s too. They do not say it’s definitive, though. None of them do. That would be irresponsible. The interpretation of BYTDWD as a place name, a temple name and even alteranative interprations of the word DWD (the vowels are not supplied, so “David” is not the only possibility) cannot be disproven. Opinions are not proof, and other scholars such as Finkelstein and Thompson have other opinions.

“Arguably so” is a long way from ‘nothing’, which is what existed before the discovery of this stele.

Arguable is not definitive. It may indicate a Davidic dynasty. It may not. It is incorrect to say that it’s conclusive, and you won’t find any responsible scholar saying it is.

[quote]
So far the king’s list up to Omri is probably reasonably accurate. As for “David”, there is now more reason than there used to be to believe he’s a historical figure[.quote]
Intriguing, but not conclusive. Not enough to say we know for a fact there was a David. I will say that it’s more likely than not, but we still haven’t moved beyond probability into certainty.

That isn’t how scholarly controversies work. We agree there are groups of scholars who are deeply invested in “proving” the literal truth of the Bible; this creates, naturally enough, a counter-reaction. I’m not saying that there is a cabal of atheists who set out to “debunk” the Bible, but rather that any scholar, under these cirumstances, who gets deeply invested in Biblical ‘minimalism’, is going to pursue the evidence for the actual, literal existance of biblical personages with less objectivity than they would (say) the existence of proto-historical Thai monarchs, about whom there is less controversy.

This is not true. They don’t work that way. Their conclusions follow the evidence. They do not lack objectivity,. They do not have an agenda. Their categorizations as “minimalists,” and the like are descriptive, not proscriptive.

Way I look at it is this: the Bible contains historical information but it was not written, or redacted, by people with any knowledge of, or interest in, historical accuracy. The historical information it contains is mixed with mythology, legend and propaganda. The further back one goes in time from the time of redaction, the less of history there is and the more of mythology. The issue is where on that scale to locate King David - mythic figure, or real king? Prior to the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele some fifteen years ago, the weight of evidence was that David was wholly mythical. That weight has shifted, and now I would say the better view is that, on a balance of probabilities, a real “David” probably existed, and was probably a prestigeous King (so as to have a dynasty associated with him). That does not of course mean that the stories about him in the OT are literally true.

This is all essentially true except for the “prestigious king,” part. That would require a kingdom, and nothing resembling the Davidic Kingdom of the Bible ever existed. Jerusalem was only a village at the time. The King Arthur analogy is probably most apt – a local warlord or chieftain (Finkelstein and Silberman even posit that he was a bandit chieftain who filled a power vaccuum after the sacking of the northern hills (the region where Saul was allegedly seated) by the Pharaoh Sheshonq), who was blown up into a figure more mythical than historical by succeeding generations of folklore.

[Malthus]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yes, that is his opinion. Kitchen’s too. They do not say it’s definitive, though. None of them do. That would be irresponsible. The interpretation of BYTDWD as a place name, a temple name and even alteranative interprations of the word DWD (the vowels are not supplied, so “David” is not the only possibility) cannot be disproven. Opinions are not proof, and other scholars such as Finkelstein and Thompson have other opinions.

Arguable is not definitive. It may indicate a Davidic dynasty. It may not. It is incorrect to say that it’s conclusive, and you won’t find any responsible scholar saying it is.

Intriguing, but not conclusive. Not enough to say we know for a fact there was a David. I will say that it’s more likely than not, but we still haven’t moved beyond probability into certainty.

And there lies the difference between us: I am not insisting on “certainty”. Indeed, if “certainty” was the bench-mark, there are few figures from antiquity that could meet it. I am not “certain” that Omri exists, either; I merely regard it as more likely than not.

To my mind, the issue is one of balance or probabilities, not certainty. In fact, it seems in this we agree: we both are of the opinion that, on the balance of probabilities, based on the leading opinions of the majority of scholars based on the best evidence currently available, it is more probable than not that a historic King named David existed.

I agree it is not “conclusive” or “certain” that such a person existed; but then, that’s a difficult standard to meet.

This is not true. They don’t work that way. Their conclusions follow the evidence. They do not lack objectivity,. They do not have an agenda. Their categorizations as “minimalists,” and the like are descriptive, not proscriptive.

You seem awfully certain of that. I myself, having been involved in scholarly controverises (albeit in other fields), find it hard to imagine that, uniquely, every single scholar on one side of this field is wholly objective.

This is all essentially true except for the “prestigious king,” part. That would require a kingdom, and nothing resembling the Davidic Kingdom of the Bible ever existed.

We have no idea what existed, since there is no evidence at all.

Jerusalem was only a village at the time.

As far as I know, no remains dated to Iron Age Jerusalem have ever been found.

The King Arthur analogy is probably most apt – a local warlord or chieftain (Finkelstein and Silberman even posit that he was a bandit chieftain who filled a power vaccuum after the sacking of the northern hills (the region where Saul was allegedly seated) by the Pharaoh Sheshonq), who was blown up into a figure more mythical than historical by succeeding generations of folklore.

The better analogy is to King Narmer of Egypt. We know of his name from king lists and such artifacts as the “Narmer Palette”; this of course is no proof of his literal existance. However, recently bullae (essentially, clay wine corks) inscribed with Narmer’s name have been found in southern Israel, which makes it ‘more probable than not’ he was a real king.

As to the deeds of David, given the lack of evidence we will probably never know. As stated, again assuming the name of the dynasty is actually used on the stele, it seems likely to have been a name of prestige a century or so after his death - more cannot be said, without more evidence; whether the Hebrews had a ‘chiefdom’ or a ‘early state’ structure with a king, we do not know. There is no particularly good reason to doubt the existance of a “kingdom” at that time, though obviously, if it existed it did not have any strong impact on its more literate neighbours.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Malthus

And there lies the difference between us: I am not insisting on “certainty”. Indeed, if “certainty” was the bench-mark, there are few figures from antiquity that could meet it. I am not “certain” that Omri exists, either; I merely regard it as more likely than not.

Omri is a certainty. David is not.

To my mind, the issue is one of balance or probabilities, not certainty. In fact, it seems in this we agree: we both are of the opinion that, on the balance of probabilities, based on the leading opinions of the majority of scholars based on the best evidence currently available, it is more probable than not that a historic King named David existed.

Depending on how you define “king.”

I agree it is not “conclusive” or “certain” that such a person existed; but then, that’s a difficult standard to meet.

It shouldn’t be difficult at all if David was as the Bible describes him.

We have no idea what existed, since there is no evidence at all.

Sure there’s evidence. You think there’s no arhaology at all from the period?

The evidence shows that no unified kingdom ever existed and that the southen region of Judah never had control of the northern region.

As far as I know, no remains dated to Iron Age Jerusalem have ever been found.

They have been, just no large public builidings or indications of anything like a city.

The better analogy is to King Narmer of Egypt. We know of his name from king lists and such artifacts as the “Narmer Palette”; this of course is no proof of his literal existance. However, recently bullae (essentially, clay wine corks) inscribed with Narmer’s name have been found in southern Israel, which makes it ‘more probable than not’ he was a real king.

No, the analogy to King Arthur is better. Even if there was a David, he was nothing like the tall tale in the Bible.

As to the deeds of David, given the lack of evidence.

We DO have evidence. We DO know. He did not acquire or rule over the grand kingdom described in the Bible. There never was such a kingdom.

[Kinthalis]

I find all of these discussions fascinating, and I wouldn’t want to derail anything but I do have a tangential question.

Why did the people writing at the time of the stele use such an imprecise method? Or is it that we don’t have a complete grasp of the language? Did the people at the time have the same difficulty in figuring out whether they were headed towards the king’s palace or a fishing village? Or whether they were reading a story about their uncle arneusus or the local drunk cornelius?

[Malthus]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Omri is a certainty. David is not.

Depending on how you define “king.”

A “king” is defined anthropologically, as in the leader of an early modern state; contrast with a “chiefdom” and “chief”.

Chiefdom

The story in the Bible purports to be the story of the social evolution of the Hebrew people from “chiefdomship” in Judges through to “early state/kingdom” under first Saul, then David.

The issue, seems to me, is whether the Hebrew tribes (or some subset of them) achieved a “state” formation as claimed in the Bible under these early rulers, or whether, in contrast, it took place a century or so later.

It shouldn’t be difficult at all if David was as the Bible describes him.

Why? What sorts of evidence should clearly exist, but does not, if David was a king?

Seems a whopping excluded middle here. David could easily be a “king” and yet the grandiose Solomonic kingdom of his alleged son Solomon could have been a more modest affair than described in the Bible.

Sure there’s evidence. You think there’s no arhaology at all from the period?

No need for snark. Yes, there is archaeology from the period. No, it does not demonstrate, one way or the other, what sort of political situation existed at the time.

At best, one can say “no prominent public buildings indicates that the early state has not yet evolved”. Problem is that it is not easy to date the prominent public buildings that do exist to “Iron Age I” rather than “Iron Age II”, and also that many if not most such buildings have not survived.

The evidence shows that no unified kingdom ever existed and that the southen region of Judah never had control of the northern region.

There is no compelling contemporary evidence that demonstrates the matter either way, on a balance of probabilities (much less certainty!)

They have been, just no large public builidings or indications of anything like a city.

The evidence is simply too fragmentary to make definitive statements. The whole area has been disturbed, not least by the creation of the temple mount.

No, the analogy to King Arthur is better. Even if there was a David, he was nothing like the tall tale in the Bible.

What is particularly “tall” about the tale, aside from the David v. Goliath bit? The biblical account strikes me at least as being a sorry story of deceit and murder, not at all unlike what you’d expect from early state formation.

We DO have evidence. We DO know. He did not acquire or rule over the grand kingdom described in the Bible. There never was such a kingdom.

Certainly nothing like the grandiose Solomonic kingdom existed. Whether David was a king, or a chief, and what the limits of his realm in either case where - simply zero evidence either way.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

There is lots of evidence. Most significantly, there is the absence of expected evidence like large public buildings, large population centers transmission of wealth into Jerusalem from the poutside and the like. At the alleged time of David, the northern region was relatively prosperous and populous while the alleged capital seat, Jerusalem, was an insignificant little village without the population, power wealth or military necessary to rule anything other than its own hilltop. This is evidence. It’s not “fragmentary.” It’s dispositive. There was no Davidic kingdom. There was, at best, a hilltop strongman.

[Malthus]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There is lots of evidence. Most significantly, there is the absence of expected evidence like large public buildings, large population centers transmission of wealth into Jerusalem from the poutside and the like. At the alleged time of David, the northern region was relatively prosperous and populous while the alleged capital seat, Jerusalem, was an insignificant little village without the population, power wealth or military necessary to rule anything other than its own hilltop. This is evidence. It’s not “fragmentary.” It’s dispositive. There was no Davidic kingdom. There was, at best, a hilltop strongman.

What’s the evidence for any of this? Sounds like an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy writ large: absence of evidence being taken as evidence of absence. Particularly ironic in this regard, as prior to the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele the absence of any refence to “David” in near-contemporary inscriptions, as opposed to the multiple citations of Omri, was taken by some as “evidence” that no David existed.

What is missing is the fact that our knowledge of the actual conditions in what is now Israel at the time is severely limited and subject to change.

For example, what is the proof that the northern regions were “prosperous and populous” compared to the southern? How do we know what “military” David posessed?

[Mk_VII]

There’s a case of some Inuit rediscovered in the later 1800s who were able to tell in quite a bit of accurate detail about the previous expedition that had discovered them in the 1600s, big wooden sailing ships being worthy of historical remembrance.

That was the search for Franklin. The interrogators realised that they were relating folk-memories of Frobisher’s visit in the 17th c.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Malthus

What’s the evidence for any of this? Sounds like an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy writ large: absence of evidence being taken as evidence of absence. Particularly ironic in this regard, as prior to the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele the absence of any refence to “David” in near-contemporary inscriptions, as opposed to the multiple citations of Omri, was taken by some as “evidence” that no David existed.

What is missing is the fact that our knowledge of the actual conditions in what is now Israel at the time is severely limited and subject to change.

For example, what is the proof that the northern regions were “prosperous and populous” compared to the southern? How do we know what “military” David posessed?

Read the book, The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Asher Silberman. The evidence is in the archaeology and is too voluminous to summarize in a few sentences, but it largely has to do with the size and number of buildings, population sizes, local industries, trade of material goods and other evidence which tells how many people lived in a given place at a given time, how wealthy and powerful they were and what they were capable of.

[Autolycus]

Oh snap, I love these Biblical throwdowns. Seriously, these are always so informative! I’ve learned more on the dope regarding the Bible than I did in college (although that’s really my own fault as my Freshman honors teacher was Pheme Perkins, a respected New Testament scholar.)

[Gary_Robson]

[moderating]
This is a fascinating discussion. I think the OP’s question is about as answered as it’s going to get for GQ. So instead of shutting this down or fighting to keep it GQ, I’m shunting it over to GD to allow it to continue in the direction it’s going. Carry on!
[/moderating]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Those early kings (Saul, David, Solomon) are all legendary. We have no firm historical or archaeological confirmation that they existed at all, much less that their dates are accurate.

Did you really have to quote 50+ lines of text for a 2-line response, Dio?

[monavis]

@Skammer

About ten years ago I spent some time working on my own family tree, and could have told you (without looking) my paternal lineage going back seven generations. It’s quite easy to believe, in my estimation, that people in an oral culture who valued their lineage much more than I do mine would be able to recall a much longer list of ascendents.

I have my family tree on my father’s side traced back to 1627. How much is true I do not know, but there is proof in Canada that it is so. My mother’s side however we were told some very ficticious stories and so far it looks like a lot of stuff has been added to soup it up a little. Some of what we traced to ships manifest etc, and considering the time it took to go from one place to another makes it very questionable. It could well be the same of people following any geneology thousands of years ago.

A theologin once said on TV a generation was 100 years. In my immediate family there are 3 generations in 80 years still living! One would have to go back and tell the number of years in a family’s generation. Some have as much as 5 generations still living.

[E-Sabbath]

@CalMeacham

While I was researching local history in a local New Jersey historical society library I came across a family genealogy that traced its family all the way back to Adam. They were completely serious – they thought that they found a link to these Biblical Genealogies and could literally trace their own descent straight from God. Hubris is a wonderful thing.

Irish? If so, I can do the same thing. John O’Hart’s fault.

John O'Hart

If not him, probably someone similar with a similar ‘prove the ancient myths true’ bee in their bonnet.

(My last name means son of Ir, if you follow the link.)

[Spoke]

@E-Sabbath

Irish? If so, I can do the same thing. John O’Hart’s fault.
John O'Hart - Wikipedia

Well, that’s probably a good illustration of the process by which the Biblical genealogies came into existence in the first place: the desire of the genealogist to connect himself or his current ruler to a legendary past.