When does the Bible stop being myth, lineage wise?

The First Jewish–Roman War took place 66–73 CE. This was before the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written.

The war really did a number on everything that would have been useful to someone wanted to research genealogy in Jerusalem. One has to wonder what sources the writers had available to them. Memories? Records kept elsewhere? But where would the generations just above Joseph/Mary come from???

Too many questions. And the attempts to “resolve” the contradictions between the two lists are in turn contradictory.

That is a ridiculous position. Look, having a person exist (and somebody has to be the first of a line) is not that same as impossible myth.

There’s no reason to assume that David wasn’t a real person. It’s not a 'extraordinary claim". Lots of real people existed. In fact, you might even be one of them!:stuck_out_tongue:

The “sun once hid in a cave” is a *extraordinary claim. *

And quite a few of the Pharaohs are on such a list without any other evidence, but are routinely accepted by archeologists. True, they do sometimes add "not verified’ etc, but that’s true of David also.

In the same way there is no reason to assume that King Arthur wasn’t a real person. And both Arthur and David have about the same level of evidence supporting their reigns.

I agree with this completely. It is irrelevant to the Biblical story of Moses, which is what we are discussing.

The story is that the entire nation was held captive by Egypt. Not that a few shepherds wandered across the border and got shanghaied. There is no evidence that a significant population, enough to constitute a distinct community, ever populated any area to the west of the Red Sea.

Sure to a extent, and archeologists are accepting there could have been someone that Arthur was based upon.

However, the Tel Dan Inscription is something that Arthur doesnt have. And most of the stories about him were published as fiction.

Look, saying “King David (or Jesus) was a real person” doesn’t prove anything about the religious beliefs in the Bible. You can be a staunch atheist and still accept that both were real people- with lots of myths and legends.

Congratulations! You have now proved that the Bible is not inerrant. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Something that no one on this thread was trying to propose and is totally irrelevant to the Op. The Biblical story of Moses is NOT what we are discussing. We are discussing how far down in the Bible can you go and find a real person.

But you tried to use stories to support lineage. When the stories don’t go your way, you can’t sudden say that the stories aren’t relevant to the lineage.

No! We do not live in a culture of nuance and moderation. It’s all or nothing!! By God, if the other side believes anything at all, we will fight to the death to prove its exact opposite! Don’t you know that’s how things work? If it mentions camels in the Bible, then rest assured, camels are no more real than dragons and I will personally pummel people about the head should they disagree. We can give no ground in our fight against those orange clad ruffians who butter their bread upside down! NO GROUND!

The only entry on Arthur that seems to be factual is, in essence, a single line saying that he lead a successful routing of the Romans in battle.

He could have been a king, a chieftan, a prince, or just “the commander in the field”. It doesn’t say who he was, just, “The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon in which there fell in one day 960 men from one charge by Arthur; and no one struck them down except Arthur himself”

The record for David is better. There’s no good evidence that the Britains had any written record on which they were basing later writings, and from how quickly and wildly the story goes sideways, I think it’s fair to say that they did only have an oral tradition on which to base anything.

With Biblical history, there’s actually some history to investigate. With Arthurian legend, you’re really just trying to trace down the root elements of the different stories that create the whole.

??:confused:??

I concur. There was likely a leader named Arthur… and a King named David. Both are highly mythologized. But the evidence for David is better. Still, I admit a little tenuous. I am not 100% sure by any means.

I should, however, note about the Chronicles of the Kings of Judeah that Rehoboam seems to be the first king cited as having an entry. It also feels a bit like the magic tones down a bit with Rehoboam.

Potentially, it was not until this point in time that the kingdom finally had some scribes.

Reading between the lines the overall story would seem to be:

As the people of Southern Canaan began to switch from nomadic to stationary life, it started to become necessary to start defending their territory from invaders.

The tribe shaman/chieftan, Samuel, was lobbied by Saul to let him organize some guys to do this work, and agreed. Saul proceeded to go around to other tribes, organizing guys and forming a general army of dudes, which he then would also use for small offensive runs as well. Eventually, Saul is recognized as the de facto ruler of the land and settles in to making babies and letting other people go into battle.

Some years later, one of Saul’s men, David, starts to make a name for himself on the battlefield, naturally rising through the ranks and gaining the fealty of many warriors. He’s a smart one and charismatic. Over time, he wins over Samuel and successfully woos several of Saul’s daughters. This worries Saul. He wants to pass on his throne to his own son, not have the throne pass through to some punk that reminds him of himself as a lad.

There’s a struggle. Saul’s son, Eshbaal becomes king, but eventually David takes it back from him after Saul’s death.

David is a pretty decent king. But still, we’re talking about a few towns and villages, here. Again, he’s basically holding his position as head of the army, so he continues to wage battles around the area, maybe adding some land to the kingdom, maybe losing some. Overall, he does alright.

However, his son, Solomon comes in and he’s the narcissistic sort that thinks that he needs to show off how great he and his kingdom are. He squeezes his people for everything they can get, and starts a bunch of construction projects, to try and leave a legacy of temples and palaces and whatever. He wants other kingdoms to know how awesome he is, so he tries to get into contact with everyone he is aware of, giving them gifts and accepting their gifts of slaves and concubines back. He builds places of worship for the visitors from all these places.

Once Solomon dies, the tribes walk, tired of having all their wealth taken and their people forced to build a bunch of useless buildings for the monarchy to use to show off, and sensing that they can get away with it under Rehoboam.

Egypt, seeing the power vacuum, swoops in, takes all of the treasures that Solomon had collected, and walks away laughing.

Rehoboam, having no better options, goes and sits in his room and calls in his scribes and tells them to start writing about how awesome his dad was and how everything he did was wonderful, and how it’s a shame that everyone left him and his family, and all they achieved was to break up the kingdom and make it easier for Egypt and anyone else to walk all over them.

Thus begins the records of the kings.

I disagree. The way I see it the only difference is that “Le Morte d’David” was just written down a lot earlier. The intervening period where it was a oral tradition was about the same in both cases.

If records began under Rehoboam, then you’re looking at living memory when talking about Saul. < 80 years.

If Arthur lived, he wasn’t written about for 400 years, and not at any length for 500+ years. And there doesn’t seem to be any correlation between what’s written at the 500 year mark that matches with anything archaeological or even just plausible.

Now certainly there are portions of the Bible, like Genesis, that are likely based on stories thousands of years old. I’m not saying that all nor most of it is written as closely to the source as Arthur, just that there are portions which can be identified as having a plausible basis in history. With Arthur, there are not. Omri definitely existed. Arthur…eh?

The Tel Dan stele was written ca. 870 which would have been roughly 100 years after the probable era of David if he existed.

Arthur wasn’t mentioned in a text describing the Battle of Badon, some 10-30 years after the battle. Arthur wasn’t mentioned 230 years later in a history of the conflict between the Romans and the Celts.

400 years later, suddenly he’s mentioned - appearing only as a name - and 100 years after that, we start seeing the beginning of a large and dynamically changing series of stories about the man, incorporating elements from Arabic, Germanic, Celtic, and other sources.

The Tel Dan Stele is not the only evidence of David’s existence; it is not all that much later than David; and it does not make any ludicrous claims: He was a king, and he made babies.

If David did not exist, I would not be astonished, but I’d probably give 70-80% odds that he existed. For Arthur, the number might be more like 10%.

And why do people accept (maybe with a note “unverified” ) a list of Pharaohs in their writings but say David is pure myth?

Simple. David is in the Bible. And Atheists think that if they can disprove any part of the Bible, the TRUTH SHALL BE REVEALED!!!

But altho the Bible does have myths and miracles, so do Egyptian writings. Why accept some early Pharaoh we only have on a list of Egyptian writings but deny David because he happens to be in the Bible?

I am an atheist by the way.

What people have done both of these things? Who has ever claimed to believe miracles set down in “Egyptian writings”, but not the miracles in the Bible? Who exactly are you rallying against with your claim?