Did King David exist? No proof, is plausible inference enough?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Is unquestionable proof necessary when speaking of historical individuals?

I say that the Biblical mention of King David, combined with some fragmentary archaeological evidence of "the house of David" is enough to say he existed.

In much the same sense, the story of George Washington and the cherry tree, though false, is evidence (not proof) that he existed.

I'm not pushing a religion here, just exploring the threshold of belief or otherwise.

[DickK]

Hi Abdul and congratulations on the first post in the new forum.

Firstly, I think you'll need to declare whether you're interested in the general case or the specific. "Unquestionable proof", especially with respect to matters of antiquity, is a rhetorical device so like all good science, the most you'll attain is a compelling body of evidence that causes further sifting and detective work to lose its appeal, namely, you'll have a theory that fits the available evidence.

If you've started off with a theory in the absence of any evidence, "King David was a real historical figure, living in Palestine at some time, say, prior, to 1000BC", and then attempt to to find evidence to fit that. you've wrong footed yourself from the start.

I agree though, the Bible is evidence, of a sort, as might be other documents. But all evidence must be assessed qualitatively. The Bible is not good evidence as it stands, too many versions, too many translators, to many mis-translations of key passages, all conspire to discredit it as a source.

Your example of George Washington and the cherry tree is not I'm afraid, good evidence that he existed, and as such does not support your case well. But it is evidence that a character called George Washington, for whose existence much better evidence exists, attracted fables concerning the nature of honesty, which may in turn contribute to theories about contemporary views of that man. Similarly, stories attributing wisdom, courage and generosity to Robin Hood are not good evidence that he existed, merely that "a character called Robin Hood attracted fables concerning the nature of wisdom, courage and generosity".

As another example of this type, the story of King Alfred and the cakes is not good evidence that he existed, like Geo. Washington, there is much better evidence to suggest that Alfred, lawgiver and builder of the first English navy, existed and ruled as King.

So, discounting reliance on the Bible for anything in this context, what's the archaelogical evidence? Surely the Bible cannot be the only documentary evidence that he existed?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by DickK
Your example of George Washington and the cherry tree is not I'm afraid, good evidence that he existed, and as such does not support your case well.

It is the year 3000 AE (Anno Elvis). Your civilization has collapsed so long ago that none but a few historians even think about it.

But the folklore story about the cherry tree survives. That proves nothing.

But there are still a few tattered dollar bills, and lots of Washington quarters in various collections.

Still not proof, but what to conclude?

As I say, plausible inference, not proof.

[DickK]

"Plausible inference" sounds like a variant of special pleading. It's can be more or less plausible, but in the end, all you'll have is evidence that is more or less compelling. You ask "what to conclude?". Given a culture that produced coinage and scrip bearing the heads of real people, for which in your example (3000 AE remember) you might need other compelling evidence, you might reasonably conclude that an important man called George Washington existed.

Notwithstanding, this doesn't alter the situation with respect to the quality of the cherry tree anecdote as evidence in isolation from stronger evidence, nor, by the same token I'm afraid, does it further the argument for King David's existence.

As I said, the archaelogical evidence you mentioned, and perhaps the prospect of further verifiable documentary evidence sounds worth discussing, so what might that be? If you wish to push the Bible as evidence of David's existence, I think the best you can do is tie Biblical references to real archaelogy and secular documents in any case.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by DickK
"Plausible inference" sounds like a variant of special pleading...

I am indeed engaging in special pleading. But King David is only an example.

It is special pleading for a manner of examining historical evidence.

Faced with definite evidence to the contrary, I am willing to give on the question of King David.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

There are many stories about Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox. I can imagine that future historians might think that they were based on a existing pioneer and embellished later. But there was no Paul Bunyan.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
There are many stories about Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox. I can imagine that future historians might think that they were based on a existing pioneer and embellished later. But there was no Paul Bunyan.

Is there any archaeological evidence for Paul Bunyan?

You should notice I said King David, not Moses or Abraham.

The archaeological evidence is key (but still not complete proof I admit).

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Part of the problem is that the stories, legends, and myths we're passed down are a large part of how we define those people. If there was once a king of Judah named David, but he didn't do any of the things attributed to "King David", did King David exist or not?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Part of the problem is that the stories, legends, and myths we're passed down are a large part of how we define those people. If there was once a king of Judah named David, but he didn't do any of the things attributed to "King David", did King David exist or not?

Based on nothing but my intuition, I'd say that the bit about little David playing upon his harp is a made up story.

But the tales of the dynastic struggles have the ring of thruth about them.

The story of David and Goliath is believable. The sling was a new military technology, and it prevailed.

Have I proved anything? No I have not. But plausible inference is enough in this case.

[DickK]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I am indeed engaging in special pleading. But King David is only an example.

It is special pleading for a manner of examining historical evidence.

Faced with definite evidence to the contrary, I am willing to give on the question of King David. Well, I guess, first principles need to apply.

If you're asking for someone to provide evidence that King David, or as Wrath says, a King David did not exist, then you'll end up asking for someone to prove a negative, so let's not do that.

You've declared that you're willing to accept what you call plausible inference without making much of a case. The detail concerning dynastic struggles and their ring of truth merely invites justifiable accusations that you may be too credulous for the good of your argument. The point regarding slings and new military technology begs the question, "when and with what evidence do you date the development of slings as military technology, and how do you date the fight between David and Goliath, if it occurred, with such precision?". You have to answer these questions. If you can't, because you don't have archaelogical or documentary evidence, then we're going in circles, so let's not do that either.

I'm afraid I can't see any ground to be made here without more interesting evidence, beyond stale musings about military technologies, their dates of inception, and the credibility of folklore. You'll need to engage others without simply paying out more line to see who will bite here. A point beyond "It sounds credible to me." needs to be made. I don't believe others need to make it, because you have made the claim. I might say, "yes, I agree", but we haven't found out anything of interest, certainly nothing that could provide a basis for assessing the quality of historical, archaeological or documentary evidence. Again, let's not do that.

I do not consider plausible inference, namely, a special pleading for relaxation of the rigour with which historical evidence is assessed, to be sufficient to the needs of historical research, if that's what you're interested in. As the antiquity and descriptive blurring of the object under discussion increases, it is certainty that decreases, not the need for evidence. This is a rule about history we should use, so let's do that.

What is your interest in this, may I ask? Reducing the amount of evidentiary need, or proving David existed, or both?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I must disagree. The Goliath story seems clearly allegorical. It may have had some basis in truth, but for it to be a literal accounting of events seems implausible. It might have happened, I suppose, but it seems highly suspicious and not worthy of being considered evidence.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Is there any archaeological evidence for Paul Bunyan?

Why, yes there is! (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/set/bunylist.html)

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Is there any archaeological evidence for Paul Bunyan?

You should notice I said King David, not Moses or Abraham.

The archaeological evidence is key (but still not complete proof I admit).

The more classic example is the Dorthy character from the Wizard of Oz. She was based on a real girl named Drothy (the author's niece I think?) and there would be 'archaeological evidence' for her, I believe.

Adam

[epepke]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
The more classic example is the Dorthy character from the Wizard of Oz. She was based on a real girl named Drothy (the author's niece I think?) and there would be 'archaeological evidence' for her, I believe.

Also, Alice Liddell, of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass fame. There are even photographs of her.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by epepke


Also, Alice Liddell, of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass fame. There are even photographs of her.

Or Wendy of Wendy's fame.

Or Walt Disney, or even President Bush. Let's face it, there's no solid line between proof and plausible inference. We can just go father and farther back until the snippets of clues become overwhelmed by uncertainty. But on the other hand, we can look at the deciding factors of why such a person wouldn't exist. Is there a good evidence of invention? In Paul Bunyan's and the fictional Alice's case, yes.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Keneke
Or Wendy of Wendy's fame.

Or Walt Disney, or even President Bush. Let's face it, there's no solid line between proof and plausible inference. We can just go father and farther back until the snippets of clues become overwhelmed by uncertainty. But on the other hand, we can look at the deciding factors of why such a person wouldn't exist. Is there a good evidence of invention? In Paul Bunyan's and the fictional Alice's case, yes.

The point that I think DickK may have been alluding to, and which I'm trying to state explicitly, is that all of this mythologization affects the question. The question "Did King David exist?" contains the term "King David." When asking whether or not "King David" existed, one first has to know what "King David" means. As a result of the process of mytholization and fictionalization, the term itself changes meaning.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Keneke


Or Wendy of Wendy's fame.

Or Walt Disney, or even President Bush. Let's face it, there's no solid line between proof and plausible inference. We can just go father and farther back until the snippets of clues become overwhelmed by uncertainty. But on the other hand, we can look at the deciding factors of why such a person wouldn't exist. Is there a good evidence of invention? In Paul Bunyan's and the fictional Alice's case, yes.

My point.

For now I will believe there was a King David.

But I don't believe in the story about Noah, despite some slight corroboration in Ovid's Metamorphoses. There is definite scientific evidence against it in that case.

But legend is fossil history.

I believe, by plausible inference, that there was a whopping big flood somewhere around the Mediterranean about 4000 years ago. But not a world wide flood that covered the highest mountain, as in the Bible. Or all but the highest mountain, per Ovid.

[a_unique_person]

There may have been a "King David". However, the extent of what that constituted is just about nothing, if you don't rely on the Bible. And a book like the Bible is really not an archeological source. For example, the extent of his rule, the duration of the dynasty, etc, would be very likely to have been great exaggerations. Especially the bits about the things god did to help him out.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Especially the bits about the things god did to help him out.

That's King David, not "saint" David.

What's particularly interesting about King David's story is that he comes off rather as a scoundrel. If there's any pious "exaggeration" it may have been in the other direction.

If God helps him at all, it's not beacause David is such a good guy.

Something about priests writing about the kings who supplanted their power. Nothing outright subversive of course.

[a_unique_person]

I think he is attributed in mythology for being chosen by god himself to rule the jews.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think he is attributed in mythology for being chosen by god himself to rule the jews.

He was "anointed", but so was his predecessor whom he overthrew. It's the Christians who later put such heavy weight on this and prefigured David as Christ.

Read it without the later interpretations, and you don't quite get history, but most of the story isn't particularly "mythological" in tone. Just some parts.

There's some pretty detailed stuff about David going priest-shopping to get anointed. And unlike the battles in the earlier parts of the Bible, no big miracluous victories.

I chose King David for a good reason, not just as a random Biblical figure.

[Mark]

I think a good comparison would be King Arthur. There is some archeological evidence for a small king of that name who lived around the 9th century or so in England. But there is no evidence whatsoever that he was or did anything remotely like the later legends. I suspect King David may be like that.

Btw, the whole Noah bit was clearly based (plagiarized, we would call it today) on the much earlier Babylonian fable of Ut Napishtim.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mark
I think a good comparison would be King Arthur. There is some archeological evidence for a small king of that name who lived around the 9th century or so in England. But there is no evidence whatsoever that he was or did anything remotely like the later legends. I suspect King David may be like that.

Btw, the whole Noah bit was clearly based (plagiarized, we would call it today) on the much earlier Babylonian fable of Ut Napishtim.

Maybe there really was a flood, but it kept getting bigger with every re-telling.

Somewhere between the independently verifiable history in the book of Ezra and the obvious mythology of Exodus, there is "fossil history".

I'd bet that King David is closer to real history than King Arthur, but both are points on a continuum of plausible inference.

Jonah on the other hand, is clearly intended as pious fiction written and written by a single author, rather than something that developed.

Think of the Bible as an anthology not a novel.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Think of the Bible as an anthology not a novel.

I tend to think of it as a rather jumbled colection of writings over several centuries; some wise, some not so wise, and some down right horrifying. But definitely unreliable---at best---as a guide to actual history.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mark


I tend to think of it as a rather jumbled colection of writings over several centuries; some wise, some not so wise, and some down right horrifying. But definitely unreliable---at best---as a guide to actual history.

Ditto.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mark


I tend to think of it as a rather jumbled colection of writings over several centuries; some wise, some not so wise, and some down right horrifying. But definitely unreliable---at best---as a guide to actual history.

I speak of analyzing parts of it to recover historical facts, not using it as a history book.

So, who existed? I read it thus:

Noah -- no
Moses -- probably not
David -- probably

Ezra -- as certain as any other accepted historical figure, such a Julius Caesar. More certain than Jesus.

As founder of the college of scribes after the Babylonian exile, the case has been made that Ezra was the real historical founder of what we would now call the Jewish religion (though not quite in any current form).

If you don't buy that theory, it is a matter of definition rather than historical fact.

Other ancient literature may be read the same way. Schliemann found the ruins of Troy by examining the evidence in the Iliad.

The point is not so much anything about a particular individual such as King David, but that when speaking of ancient history, plausible inference is the way to proceed. Not proof.

This is very different in kind from being either a fundamentalist or anti-fundamentalist apologist. One neither swallows it whole nor gets bogged down in details such as Moses contradicting himself.

[Zep]

OK, a question on notice (hope I put this right):

What is the extant, non-biblical evidence for the existence of a Semetic King David at the time and place where he is claimed to have ruled?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


David -- probably



Probably not...as described in the Bible, anyway. A "King David" of some sort probably existed...

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Zep
OK, a question on notice (hope I put this right):

What is the extant, non-biblical evidence for the existence of a Semetic King David at the time and place where he is claimed to have ruled?

Fragmentary inscriptions only.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Fragmentary inscriptions only. On carved rock, I take it? And where? Can we link to them or the scholars involved?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Zep
On carved rock, I take it? And where? Can we link to them or the scholars involved?

Yes (or maybe it was pottery, not coins). Israel.

As for the rest, I don't have it off the top of my head, but I'll see what I can do. It's been a while and I didn't read about it online.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Yes (or maybe it was pottery, not coins). Israel.

As for the rest, I don't have it off the top of my head, but I'll see what I can do. It's been a while and I didn't read about it online. OK, hard evidence does sound fragmentary. :)

What about in postcedent non-biblical writings? OK, they may be second-hand by many years, but they will be likely somewhat closer to the "truth" than 16th century bibles.

And the records of other parallel cultures? Would he have preceded or paralleled the early Egyptians? There may be references to the kingdoms in the east and so on among their records. Babylonians?

[Quixote]

Objective information on the subject is hard to find on the web. Here is a site with a definite bias. But it has pictures.

http://graal.co.uk/houseofdavid.html

What is actually found on the two stones are the four letter combination "BT DD", or rather the Hebrew analogue. Scholars have not agreed on what vowels were intended to go with the consonents. So it could be bitay daud, bet Daud, or something else. The two most popular translations are "[the] house of Daivd" and something like "David town". Even the scholars who believe that "house of David" is the proper reading disagree as to whether the phrase refers to a dynastic line.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Quixote
Objective information on the subject is hard to find on the web. Here is a site with a definite bias. But it has pictures.

http://graal.co.uk/houseofdavid.html

What is actually found on the two stones are the four letter combination "BT DD", or rather the Hebrew analogue. Scholars have not agreed on what vowels were intended to go with the consonents. So it could be bitay daud, bet Daud, or something else. The two most popular translations are "[the] house of Daivd" and something like "David town". Even the scholars who believe that "house of David" is the proper reading disagree as to whether the phrase refers to a dynastic line.

I seem to recall there was more, but if that's it I'll lower my probability estimate.

However I still consider the plausible parts of the Bible story to be partial evidence, though not definitive.

I refer to the politicking, warring factions, and dynastic struggles, not little David playing on the harp and such.

I'd like a more theoretical discussion of plausible inference on the other thread. Meanwhile I will see if I can't find something in my lbrary.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I seem to recall there was more, but if that's it I'll lower my probability estimate.

However I still consider the plausible parts of the Bible story to be partial evidence, though not definitive.

I refer to the politicking, warring factions, and dynastic struggles, not little David playing on the harp and such.

I'd like a more theoretical discussion of plausible inference on the other thread. Meanwhile I will see if I can't find something in my lbrary. I understand where you are heading with your plausible inference idea. The situation is that this can be stronger or weaker (i.e. more or less plausible) depending on what basis you are infering from. To this end, a fair summary of available evidence may go a long way towards forming that basis.

For example, we may find some parallel contemporary societies that refer to "a great king" in that region. There may be references to internicene strife as well, perhaps even name him or the dynasty directly. From there you have a smaller and more solid "black box" to work with, and thus your inferences and their plausibility can be strengthened.

I always like to gather all evidence first, not last.

[davefoc]

I hope Carpel Dodger posts to this thread. He has a stronger opinion than most that David existed.

I don't think there is any question amongst secular archeologists that if David existed he ruled a much smaller, less powerful kingdom than the bible suggests.

I think given the almost completely fictional biblical stories dealing with periods earlier than David that is reasonable to suspect that the David stories are almost completely made up also. Basically people that were writing biblical stories were putting together propaganda to unite believer populations in rebellions and to aggrandize priests. I don't think truth was even a goal let alone a minor goal of the biblical stories. Most of the truth that exists in the bible are in the stories that deal with contemporaneous events to the writing where some truth is forced on the authors because the writings had to be plausible to the target audience.

As an aside I liked Abdul Alhazred's likelyhood of existence list:

This list with my comments:

Noah - no -- no way, no how, no one that even could be thought to have served as an inspiration for the character. A completely fictional story probably plagiarized from earlier fictional stories.

Moses - probably not -- very close to just plain no. There is no archeological evidence for the exodus through the dessert, there is no confirming data in Egyptian hieroglyphics, most of the story is unlikely or impossible, the pharoah isn't named which is strange given how even other minor characters are named.

David - probably - agree with mark on this: "Probably not...as described in the Bible, anyway. A "King David" of some sort probably existed..."

I think it is less likely that Jesus existed than David, although my guess is that they both existed if by that one means somebody that might have inspired the stories but whose life is different in most significant details from the biblical accounts.

[Zep]

I'm sorry if I appear nit-picky just here, but in the Critical Thinking forum, perhaps this sort of thing needs to be tightened up here too. My apologies - let's just say this is a bugbear of mine. :)
...the exodus through the dessert...

[Abdul Alhazred]

But the priestly propaganda (1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles) is not very kind to the royal rivals for power of the priestly caste. Why make up fictional kings in order to smear them?

Plenty of general folklore thrown in too. But we're talking about the plausibility of the existence of King David.

Not the plausibility of God or Satan inspiring David to take a census (the Bible says both, but in different places).

[davefoc]

[response to sidetrack]
It's funny that you'd point that out. I didn't like it when I wrote it and left it in out of laziness.

Perhaps this would have been better:
There is no archeological evidence for the forty year journey through the desert.

A criticism of my overall post might be that it was short on evidence and long on opinion. That also had something to do with my laziness. I am looking for a site with more evidence that I've been to before on this topic but I haven't been able to find it yet.
[/response to sidetrack]

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by davefoc
I don't think there is any question amongst secular archeologists that if David existed he ruled a much smaller, less powerful kingdom than the bible suggests.

As I understand it, just the area around and between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

I think given the almost completely fictional biblical stories dealing with periods earlier than David that is reasonable to suspect that the David stories are almost completely made up also...

The stuff about David was written much later. See my previous post.

As an aside I liked Abdul Alhazred's likelyhood of existence list...


Thank you. I will add to it:

Jonah -- Definitely existed. :p

By tradition the prophet Jonah wrote the book of Jonah. It is a short book, and by textual analysis almost certainly had a single author. It was probably written in a single sitting.

Somebody wrote it, right? And the only name we have for that somebody is Jonah. So he told a tall tale? Does that mean he didn't exist?

Seriously, I don't think this fable was ever intended to be taken literally. It is a fable with a good moral, and fundamentalists are fools.

[Zep]

Originally posted by davefoc
[response to sidetrack]
It's funny that you'd point that out. I didn't like it when I wrote it and left it in out of laziness.

Perhaps this would have been better:
There is no archeological evidence for the forty year journey through the desert.

A criticism of my overall post might be that it was short on evidence and long on opinion. That also had something to do with my laziness. I am looking for a site with more evidence that I've been to before on this topic but I haven't been able to find it yet.
[/response to sidetrack] <insert smilie here> It was a sidetrack to do with spelling of the highlighted word only. It gave the impression of an unruly crowd knocking over a tray full of ice-creams on the way out of a restaurant.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I seem to recall there was more, but if that's it I'll lower my probability estimate.

I dug out all my books, and apparently that is all there is.

I'll back off on my assertion of King David's existence, but I still won't admit a zero probability.

I still assert that the Bible can be used as positive evidence. As it is with any ancient literature, be it the Iliad, Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Bible or whatever.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I'll back off on my assertion of King David's existence, but I still won't admit a zero probability.


Look at it the other way. If King David didn't exsist why make him up?

Why tie legends of battles with the Philistines, the Ark of the Covenant, Solomon, Bathsheba, Saul, Hebron, Jerusalem, Joab or even Matthew 1:1 to a guy who never exsisted? That's quite a conspiracy. Seems harder to believe than King David not exsisting at all.

What he accomplished may be disputed by I think his existence is pretty well assured.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir



Look at it the other way. If King David didn't exsist why make him up?

Why tie legends of battles with the Philistines, the Ark of the Covenant, Solomon, Bathsheba, Saul, Hebron, Jerusalem, Joab or even Matthew 1:1 to a guy who never exsisted? That's quite a conspiracy. Seems harder to believe than King David not exsisting at all.

What he accomplished may be disputed by I think his existence is pretty well assured.

That's pretty much my point. I wasn't using the Bible as a history book, I was making plausible inferences.

However, you could make the same Biblical argument about Moses, but there I'd say the evidence is much weaker.

I use the term 'plausibility' rather 'probability' becuase whatever happened is what happened. No element of chance in deciding what to think, only some degree of uncertainty.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
That's pretty much my point. I wasn't using the Bible as a history book, I was making plausible inferences.

The bible never says the world is a sphere, when spheres exsisted in everyday life during the creation of the bible. So I always take the bible with a grain of salt. Plus I am not a fan of organized religion.

To make up someone and tie so many legends to him and when you have artifacts found in Israel which talk about the "House of David", I just find his exsistence more probable than a giant conspiracy to "invent" someone called King David.

[Mark]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir


The bible never says the world is a sphere, when spheres exsisted in everyday life during the creation of the bible. So I always take the bible with a grain of salt. Plus I am not a fan of organized religion.

To make up someone and tie so many legends to him and when you have artifacts found in Israel which talk about the "House of David", I just find his exsistence more probable than a giant conspiracy to "invent" someone called King David.

I assume you feel this argument applies to Jesus as well?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mark
I assume you feel this argument applies to Jesus as well? Sure. Why not. What would be the motivation for the Romans, Jews and Christians to 'invent' a guy named Jesus?

What King David or Jesus accomplished during their lives can be debated easily. Was Jesus the "son of god", I doubt it. Did King David slay Goliath? Who knows. I choose to look at it the other way, what would be the motivation for a conspiracy to 'invent' King David or Jesus? For me a huge conspiracy to 'invent' people is less probable than the people actually exsisting.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Sure. Why not. What would be the motivation for the Romans, Jews and Christians to 'invent' a guy named Jesus?

What King David or Jesus accomplished during their lives can be debated easily. Was Jesus the "son of god", I doubt it. Did King David slay Goliath? Who knows. I choose to look at it the other way, what would be the motivation for a conspiracy to 'invent' King David or Jesus? For me a huge conspiracy to 'invent' people is less probable than the people actually exsisting.

In some cases, stories about two or more people may have fused into one. This may explain some of the chronological inconsistencies in the Jesus story. But if Jesus is a combination, in what sense did "he" exist?

And some details really were added for propaganda purposes. For example, Herod slaying the first born to make it parallel to the story of Moses.

Herod existed. In fact there were several. This is attested in many other historical sources. If any of them slew the first born, that is notable enough be mentioned in those other sources (without the details concerning Jesus).

[Mark]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Sure. Why not. What would be the motivation for the Romans, Jews and Christians to 'invent' a guy named Jesus?

What King David or Jesus accomplished during their lives can be debated easily. Was Jesus the "son of god", I doubt it. Did King David slay Goliath? Who knows. I choose to look at it the other way, what would be the motivation for a conspiracy to 'invent' King David or Jesus? For me a huge conspiracy to 'invent' people is less probable than the people actually exsisting.

Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman documents that I know of. Which is odd, since the Romans were quite fanatical record keepers...

As far as the Jews and Christians...well, why did the Greeks invent
Zeus? The Romans Vesta? The Hindus Vishnu? Your argument would seem to imply that all of these are real because no one would "invent" them.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mark
Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman documents that I know of. Which is odd, since the Romans were quite fanatical record keepers...Not so. I believe there are writings of a Roman scholar named Tacitus who wrote about Jesus.



Originally posted by Mark
As far as the Jews and Christians...well, why did the Greeks invent Zeus? The Romans Vesta? The Hindus Vishnu? Your argument would seem to imply that all of these are real because no one would "invent" them. I cannot answer that question.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Not so. I believe there are writings of a Roman scholar named Tacitus who wrote about Jesus.


There was some troublemaker named "Chrestus" who Suetonius wrote about, who might have been Jesus.

Josephus includes Jesus in a list of alleged magical healers.

Tacitus reports what Christians believed (and doesn't get it quite right).

This is pretty weak evidence compared to that for ther existence of any of the Caesars or Herods, but that would be expected in any case.

If only we had an arrest record in Pontius Pilate's handwriting. :p

[davefoc]

This thread inspired me to spend some free time over the last view days reviewing the information on the web regarding the evidence for the historical David and the evidence for the historical Jesus.

My conclusion after this was that it was somewhat more likely that David existed as an historical character than I thought previously and somewhat less likely that Jesus existed as an historical character than I had previously thought.

In the case of David there is essentially no evidence one way or other for the details of most of the biblical stories. There seems to be something of a consensus amongst archeologists that if he did exist the empire that he presided was substantially smaller than the bible suggests. Some of what was thought to be evidence of ruins from David or Solomon's times are now dated so as to belong to later kings. Although, this redating doesn't seem to have been univierally agreed to by all biblical archeologists.

The direct evidence for the existence of David consists of four items:
Ninth century stone slab with house of David in Aramaic
Possible mention by tenth century BC pharaoh sheshonq
6th century BC quote of David's psalms in coptic
Possible mention on Ninth century Moabite stone

These items are described in more detail in this web site:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/david__solomon__jeroboam__reho.html

This web site makes the case for either a non-existent David or a David that is at best a small time leader

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/david.htm

If an original 'Dawid' inspired the legendary king, he was an inconsequential bandit chieftain in the Judaean hills, nothing more. Possibly the only element of truth in the biblical story is the episode of David as renegade and outlaw leader, living from theft.

In the case of Jesus, I think the evidence is more clear cut that most of the stories were just made up. The complete lack of contemporaneous writing on Jesus and timing of the various Christian documents suggests that people after the alleged life of Jesus people were just puffing the story up by inserting various notions from other religions and maybe some of their own creativity. Interestingly, all of the gospels are thought to have been derived from a single document known as the q document. It is the work of the anonymous author of the q document that might have had more to do with getting Christianity going than any other individual and he is and probably always will be completely anonymous.

link to one of the more comprehensive sites that argues that Jesus didn't exist:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

link to an article that summarizes the Jesus didn't exist arguments nicely:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

link to an article arguing for a historical Jesus:
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

Before Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse. Though Christ was not proclaimed a deity until the fourth century, Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote in 112 A.D., two hundred years before the "deity" proclamation, that Christians in Bithynia worshipped Christ.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by davefoc
This thread inspired me ...
Very good. Thank you.

[davefoc]

ZN said in reference to a question about the existence of Jesus:Sure. Why not. What would be the motivation for the Romans, Jews and Christians to 'invent' a guy named Jesus?

There are similarities about the David stories and the Jesus stories, but there are also differences in the ways the stories were created.

The David stories seem to have been written down more or less at the same time, albeit hundreds of years after the reported events. My sense of it is that the authors were trying mightily to promote the importance of priests to interpret and obtain the word of God so a great deal of the David stories are just made up self serving stuff for the priests. But beyond that I think that the priest/writers are likely to have weaved existing stories and names into their narrative because that would have lended some credibility to their works.


The Jesus stories, in my view, are less credible than the David stories even though they were created closer in time to the alleged events for a variety of reasons:
1. Lack of contemporary non biblical records. Even though the same can be said about the David stories, the difference is that by the time of Jesus people were keeping lots of records and it is reasonable to think that there would have been some record for a Jesus type character if he was having the impact suggested by the New Testament.
2. Paul's writings that are believed to be the closest in time to the alleged existence of Jesus do not contain any of the main elements of the Jesus story that is outlined in the Gospels.
3. Some of the elements of the Jesus stories seem to have been derived almost directly from Old Testament predictions about the upcoming Messiah. This suggests the possibility here that there was a widespread idea that a messiah was coming and the Jesus stories were written to conform to that expectation.
4. The lack of identifiable authors for the Gospels in the New Testament is very suspicious. Other historical writings of the time are often credited to real people, why not the Gospels?
5. The fact that the Gospels appear to be based on the work of a single individual substantially reduces the credibility of the Gospels. These are not four independent narratives by different people observing and recording the same events. The Gospels appear to be just the reworking and embellishing the work of an earlier unidentified author.
6. The Gospels are inconsistent with each other and with the details of the time further reducing their value as a credible source of information about anything.

Perhaps, ZN's question was sarcastic about why the Jews, Christians and Romans would invent a guy named Jesus. But even so it strikes me as a reasonable question. It seems like each of those groups would have had their own agenda for making up the stories. I suspect that that some Jewish priest/story tellers were motivated to create a Jesus that fulfilled biblical prophecy. The motivation for the early Christian priest/story tellers to make up Jesus stories is obvious. Apparently the Romans were a little late to the whole make up Jesus stories thing, but when the religion caught on there they made up for lost time by making up the whole Peter as the founder of the Roman Catholic church thing.

Does anybody have any thoughts about whether it is more likely that King Arthur was a real historical character than Jesus?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by davefoc


Does anybody have any thoughts about whether it is more likely that King Arthur was a real historical character than Jesus?



The earliest references to King Arthur that I know of are the "Annals of Wales" and Nennius's "History of the Britons". The latter was written about 830 and the former probably begun in the 700's. Both claim that Arthur fought against and defeated the Saxons at the battle of Mount Badon in the late 400's (ish). However the Celtic British cleric Gildas in his book "On the ruin and conquest of Britain" written in the 540's makes no mention of any Arthur participating in that or any other battle. In other words there is no evidence that a major figure known as Arthur played a major role in the history of the period.

So the source of the stories about Arthur is a mystery, which makes him rather like Jesus really.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
For me a huge conspiracy to 'invent' people is less probable than the people actually exsisting. Which is more likely: a huge media conspiracy to make Israel look bad and the Palestinians look better than they are, or that Israelis do things just as bad as the Palestinians?

Methinks I detect a double standard here.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Which is more likely: a huge media conspiracy to make Israel look bad and the Palestinians look better than they are, or that Israelis do things just as bad as the Palestinians?

Methinks I detect a double standard here.

Gee whiz. Talk about thread hijacking.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Which is more likely: a huge media conspiracy to make Israel look bad and the Palestinians look better than they are, or that Israelis do things just as bad as the Palestinians?

Methinks I detect a double standard here.

OK this is a thread not about 'Critical Thinking' anymore. It is about justifying your suicide bomber buddies.

This was the first thread in the 'Critical Thinking' forum and I started it.

It is now the first thread in this forum to which I "unsubscribe". Bye!

[davefoc]

Abdul Alhazred said:

OK this is a thread not about 'Critical Thinking' anymore. It is about justifying your suicide bomber buddies.

This was the first thread in the 'Critical Thinking' forum and I started it.


I understand from your post that you really wanted people not to digress or bring in personal attacks in this new format restricted to serious discussion and that if they did you weren't going to participate further.

It seems that you are right that WOTS didn't exactly conform to this format (as did some of my earlier digression into semantics or Zeps digression into spelling). But it seems that it was your over reaction to WOTS's comments that may have derailed the thread. I don't know the history between you and WOTS, but I couldn't infer from his words in this thread anything that justified your attack.