Talk:David

Are there no historical references for King David? The construction of the temple mount by his son King Solomon, is widely acknowledged outside of rabbinical literature and is supported by historians like Josephus, who lived only a few hundred years after. While biblical literature faces scrutiny, King David's historical existence is recognized beyond rabbinical texts. Flavius Josephus is generally accepted as a credible historian, so I'll try to find the exact text when I have a chance. Additionally, I'll explore other historical sources, as adding a historical reference would enhance the article. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Flavius Josephus is generally accepted as a credible historian" Not really. Josephus' biases are particularly evident in his writings. From the main article:

• • "historian Mary Smallwood, in the introduction to the translation of The Jewish War by G. A. Williamson, writes:

    [Josephus] was conceited, not only about his own learning, but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was blackening his opponents; and after landing, however involuntarily, in the Roman camp, he turned his captivity to his own advantage, and benefited for the rest of his days from his change of side.^[1]

    " Dimadick (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  [Of course he's biased and wrote in a very particular personal position, but I don't see how that translates to being "unreliable" per se, especially with the weight of two millennia of historiography on top of his work to accompany one's reading of it. He has obvious scruples, I don't see how it's different than citing Herodotus about the Persian Wars, Sima Qian about the Warring States period, or Procopius's Secret History.]

  To answer the OP: from what I've read, it seriously doubted whether David was a historical figure that resembles what's come down to us, as opposed to essentially being an amalgam. Remsense聊 01:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Remsense Agreed. Being a figure of various traditions inevitably introduces discrepancies in accounts, leading to an amalgamation of diverse viewpoints that deviate from the original narrative. The historical figure handed down to us appears distinct depending on the source, inviting much-needed skepticism. Nevertheless, a substantial body of evidence exists, affirming with confidence that David was a tangible figure, and it was his son who erected the Temple Mount. Titus destroyed the Second Temple during the First Jewish-Roman War, and today the Western Wall remains.

  It is problematic to say that all of what is known of David is from Biblical literature: "Apart from this, all that is known of David comes from biblical literature, the historicity of which has been extensively challenged, and there is little detail about David that is concrete and undisputed." If you think it would enhance the article, what approach would you take to incorporating the historical account of Josephus into the lead of the article? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  To cut through layers of legend, there was a Temple in Jerusalem, probably small, probably Pagan, and probably not built by Solomon. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Tgeorgescu: This source disagrees. Potatín5 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This source is based on the scriptures. In reality there is no such evidence in archaeology. Josephus was not alive around the alleged time of David, and would not be able to add anything beyond thousand-year-old anecdote. Wdford (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

When I have the chance I will source archaeological evidence, I agree that is a more straightforward way of enhancing the article. Still, I think there is merit in Josephus' account even if they need to be contextualized as not being alive during that time. Just curious, who do you believe built the [[Western Wall]]? Do you disagree that there was a jewish temple there? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

We can't know for sure, that's why I said probably. Anyway, the point is that even if that Temple was dedicated to Yahweh, Yahweh was still by and large a Pagan god. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where are your sources for this claim and what does that have to do with this discussion about the First Temple? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Relevance: Pagan god in Pagan Temple. That Yahweh was initially a Pagan god is Bible scholarship 101. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please provide a source. Furthermore, it's a leap of logic to assume because other cultures adopted similar worship that the Temple was built by pagans. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Smith, Mark S. (2002). The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.). Eerdmans. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-8028-3972-5.

A much simpler point is that Judaism simply did not exist in the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, so everybody was a Pagan (meaning polytheist), including all Judahites and all Israelites. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source for this claim? According to your source when was Judaism founded? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true.

— Prof. Dr. Herbert Niehr, Tübingen University, Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God have A Wife, BBC, 2011

But to sum up, it's clear that the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs are not strict Yahwists, as we will come to understand that term. The P and the E sources preserve this insight; and they preserve it in their insistence that the Patriarchs worshiped God as El, but at the time of the Exodus, God revealed himself as Yahweh. There's an interesting passage in the book of Joshua, Joshua 24:14-15. Joshua was the successor to Moses. He presents the Israelites with the following choice: "Now therefore revere the Lord," using the word Yahweh, "revere Yahweh, and serve him with undivided loyalty. Put away the gods that your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt"--put away the gods your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt--"and serve Yahweh. / Choose this day which ones you are going to serve, but I in my household will serve Yahweh," serve the Lord. Only later would a Yahweh-only party polemicize against and seek to suppress certain… what came to be seen as undesirable elements of Israelite-Judean religion, and these elements would be labeled Canaanite, as a part of a process of Israelite differentiation. But what appears in the Bible as a battle between Israelites, pure Yahwists, and Canaanites, pure polytheists, is indeed better understood as a civil war between Yahweh-only Israelites, and Israelites who are participating in the cult of their ancestors.

— Christie Hayes, Open Yale Courses

You seem to be an expert in the history of Judaism, as told by Orthodox Jewish scholars, which is completely different from the history of Judaism taught at WP:CHOPSY.

The POV of Orthodox Jews upon early Judaism is to a large extent void currency inside the mainstream academia. In mainstream history, it's void. Same as Jehovah's Witnesses dating the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Despite your protestations, it is clear that both these groups promote cult pseudohistory. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory.

I don't say that you have to agree with me, but you do have to understand that Wikipedia isn't a venue for WP:SOAPBOXING for fundamentalist pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate gaining a better understanding of your perspective. It seems you're referring to the Documentary Hypothesis, which indeed lacks academic consensus. In the latter part of the 20th century, critiques of the documentary hypothesis emerged, notably through publications such as "Abraham in History and Tradition" by John Van Seters, "Der sogenannte Jahwist" ("The So-Called Yahwist") by Hans Heinrich Schmid, and "Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch" ("The Tradition-Historical Problem of the Pentateuch") by Rolf Rendtorff. While these scholars shared criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, they diverged on alternative paradigms.

Van Seters and Schmid contended that the Yahwist source couldn't be dated to the Solomonic period as proposed by the documentary hypothesis but rather to the Babylonian captivity or the late monarchic period. Van Seters also questioned the substantiality of the Elohist source.

Regarding your concerns about pseudo-history, some of the history you describe aligns with Jewish historical narratives, where there was indeed a divergence between idol-worshipping Jews and those adhering to monotheism. Moreover, the patriarchs were unequivocally monotheistic figures, as depicted in the Torah.

The Torah emphatically denounces idol worship as one of the gravest sins, even to the extent of emphasizing that a Jew must sacrifice their life before committing idolatry. Abraham's Hebrew name, which can translate to "other side," symbolizes his departure from the idolatrous environment of his parents and society. The assertion that the patriarchs were idol worshippers doesn't correlate with the primary sources.

While acknowledging ongoing debates about David's historicity, I believe enriching the article with archaeological evidence would be valuable. I'm open to incorporating more evidence to present a balanced view and depict David as a possible historical figure rather than a definite mythical one. Please let me know what evidence you think would enhance the article, and I'll take the responsibility to find it. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not the one claiming that David did not exist, or that Solomon did not exist. I don't put all my money upon the Documentary Hypothesis. the patriarchs were unequivocally monotheistic figures—if you mean characters from a book, I agree, that book however does not amount to historical reality. symbolizes his departure from the idolatrous environment—regardless of what it symbolizes, such symbolism does not amount to historical evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that referencing the Tanach doesn't constitute historical evidence for this discussion, and its relevance depends on the context of our discussion. My mention of the Tanach was in response to your citation of text from Joshua to suggest that the patriarchs were polytheists when the Tanach suggest the opposite.

Regarding the historicity of David, it's essential to acknowledge the ongoing debates surrounding his existence. Enriching the article with archaeological evidence could greatly contribute to presenting a more balanced perspective and portraying David as a potentially historical figure rather than definitively mythical.

Once again, additional evidence that has been glossed over could enhance the article. Please feel free to suggest any archaeological findings or scholarly works that you believe would be pertinent to our discussion, and I'll take the responsibility to find it. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said, the direct archaeological evidence about David is one broken piece of stone. For the rest, archaeological evidence about 10th century BCE Judah mostly debunks the idea that David had a fully formed state. William G. Dever, who is on the conservative side of mainstream Syro-Palestinian archaeology, said that David had an "early inchoate state". tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

William G. Dever is a self-described "unreconstructed traditionalist". He is also 90-years-old, and probably older than many of the current archaeologists in his field. Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

... which is precisely my point: what people call "liberal scholars" would easily agree with the statement that David did not really have a state, but when even a conservative like Dever agrees, it is a sign that it got accepted as fact. Dever defends a greater historical validity of the Bible without engaging in denialism or pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Another view is that David did not have an ordinarily findable kingdom (through archaeology), but he ruled over a kingdom of nomads. And archaeologists will have to explore this idea before declaring it wasn't the case. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to the Bible, David was a bit of a nomad warlord during the reign of Saul, but later he lived in a palace in a "city" where he abducted bathing maidens off their rooftops etc. The city may have been very small, and the palace even smaller, but there is no evidence of a major kingdom as related in the Bible stories. Wdford (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As per Wikipedia, the Western Wall was started by King Herod the Great, almost a thousand years after the putative time of King David. Most of what we see now was added during the later Islamic period. There was large-scale architecture in Jerusalem long before the putative time of David, but that was Bronze-Age Canaanite work. There was fresh Iron-Age architecture in Jerusalem after the putative time of David. However the Western Wall was part of the so-called Second Temple, built originally by Herod the Great. Wdford (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Correct, the significance of the Western Wall lies in its proximity to the Temple Mount. King Herod the Great aimed to construct a massive temple, and to achieve this, he erected massive retaining walls around Mount Moriah. Thus, the focal point is really about the Temple Mount rather than just the wall. Let's rewind about 500 years. According to Jewish history, this marks the destruction of the First Temple. As per Wikipedia, the Temple Mount is considered the holiest site in Judaism, where both Temples once stood. Before all of this, there existed a Canaanite presence in Israel, in line with Jewish tradition. Just to clarify: Do you also believe there was a First Temple before the Second one, and who do you think built it? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I advise you to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm having an engaging discussion with Wdford based on fact and reason and seeing where it takes us, no need to inject this here. I did not attempt to cite the Torah directly for the claim that the 1st Temple was built by King Solomon. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yup, the Torah isn't an authority according to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Nor is Josephus, because he is not a 21st century historian. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where is your source on Wikipedia conventions that sources written over 24 years ago cannot be included? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not about 24, but about 100: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#User edit warring to add back sources older than 100 years.

And Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 360#Age of a history book. How old is considered too old to be cited?

These being said, I have WP:CITED myself works by Carl Clemen and Edward Gibbon, but I did fully disclose to the reader how old were those works, i.e. stated in prose that it is a scholarly view from 1924 or from the 18th century.

WP:RSN does not support a ban on these sources, but does admit that the insights of many Ancient or Medieval historians (e.g. Josephus) have been largely superseded. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am having increasing trouble seeing this discussion's relevance. You started talking about David's historicity. How did this turn to a discussion about the historicity of Solomon's Temple, and should not this be discussed on the Temple's talk page?Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

We are discussing archeological evidence for King David's existence. However, the OP thinks sources outside of the 21st Century generally don't have merit, so not sure where to go from there. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

My opinion is that the article on David and the article on Solomon's Temple are correct as they stand. There undoubtedly were Canaanite/Jebusite structures on that hill at some point, and the descriptions of the First Temple corresponds closely with "pagan" temple designs of the period, so if there was a temple on that hill then it was quite possibly a pagan temple. As far as I have read, there is no actual hard evidence that Solomon actually existed, outside of the scriptures and Josephus. However the existence of the Second Temple (of King Herod) is clear. None of this has anything to do with King David, or this particular article. Wdford (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide concrete evidence, rather than circumstantial, that the First Temple is undoubtedly Canaanite/Jebusite and that King David and King Solomon didn't exist? As far as I know, those assertions remain theoretical. I believe I've encountered archaeological evidence supporting King David's existence. If you're open to exploring new information, I can dig it up. Just let me know what criteria you're looking for, and I'll do my best to provide the necessary evidence. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is one broken piece of stone which attests the existence of the House of David. For Solomon we don't even have that much! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying that sources written before the 21st century should be banned from Wikipedia. What I do say is: WP:RSAGE. That's a content guideline which as a rule of thumb has to be obeyed by all Wikipedians. More to the point of allowing you to WP:CITE Josephus in order to give the lie to WP:CHOPSY: no, we don't allow that. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no concrete evidence that the putative First Temple ever existed at all. All we have is scripture, which is of dubious historicity. The existence of Bronze-Age Canaanite structures in Jerusalem is solidly attested by the archaeology, as is the much-later Temple of Herod. Ditto, there is no evidence at all that either King David or King Solomon ever existed. A broken piece of rock alluded to a "House of David", which could mean anything, whereas the archaeology shows no sign of any kingdom to match that described in the scriptures. If either of them did exist, they were probably minor chiefs of minor tribes at best. These issues have been thrashed out in huge detail on this page previously - you can find it in the archives. Wdford (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand your position that there is no evidence, but that's not what I was inquiring about. Again, can you provide concrete evidence, rather than circumstantial, that the First Temple is undoubtedly Canaanite/Jebusite and that King David and King Solomon didn't exist? As far as I know, those assertions remain theoretical. I believe I've encountered archaeological evidence supporting King David's existence. If you're open to exploring new information, I can dig it up.

Let me know what criteria you're looking for, and I'll do my best to provide the necessary evidence, as I've accepted the burden on myself to find that information. That's the way I think is most productive to have a conversation and move forward. I think I'm being very reasonable, but if you decide you know everything there is to know about the topic and don't even want to specify the threshold of evidence needed to update the article, then I don't want to waste my time. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, the assertion that David was a historical figure is based on a disputed reading of the Tel Dan stele. The term "dwd" in the text may stand for "David". Conversely, it may mean "dōd" (uncle) or "dūd" (kettle). Another reading is that the writer is using "bytdwd" as a place-name for Jerusalem. Dimadick (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is NO First Temple standing anymore - assuming there ever was one. It exists only in scriptural writings of disputed historicity, reliability and objectivity. Ends. Wdford (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say it is still standing; this is a strawman argument. We are discussing archaeological evidence for David's existence.

I am attempting to find the threshold of evidence needed to update the article, and you keep ignoring my very reasonable question. Let me know what criteria you're looking for, and I'll do my best to provide the necessary evidence, as I've accepted the burden on myself to find that information. That's the most productive way to have a conversation and move forward.

I believe I'm being very reasonable, but if you decide you know everything there is to know about the topic and don't even want to specify the threshold of evidence needed to update the article, could that be a violation of Wikipedia policy? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The majority opinion of archaeologists is that David and Solomon did exist, however such opinions relies on scant evidence. That piece of rock, in a plausible reading, says a minor Aramean king vanquished 70 kings of Israel and Judah. So, the question is: if there were 70 kings, probably "king" means village head or something like that. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article currently discusses the historicity of David in appropriate detail. As I have stated previously, if you wish to add anything, simply present it here for discussion. As I have stated previously, these issues have been thrashed out in huge detail on this page previously, and all those arguments are available in the archives. I await your proposed material with interest. Wdford (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ideally, I want to ensure that my contributions align with your expectations for the article's development. Since you've stated you're content with the current state of the article's discussion on the historicity of David and prefer no further changes, I don't want to waste my time. However, if you're open to enriching it with new information, I'm more than willing to contribute.

In my previous communication, I might not have articulated it well, but what I'm essentially asking for is the threshold of evidence required to warrant updates to the article regarding David's historicity.

By specifying the criteria you're seeking ahead of time, I can ensure that the information I provide aligns with your expectations, is as relevant as possible and adheres to Wikipedia conventions. This transparency not only streamlines the contribution process but also minimizes the risk of submitting information that may not meet your standards. It's about fostering a more direct and effective collaboration.

Let me know the specifics you're looking for, and I'll endeavor to meet those requirements to the best of my ability. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

See WP:RS and WP:NPOV for what counts as a reliable source on wikipedia. Those are the expectations; beyond that, it's only that you'll take account of previous discussions on this talk page...

Per WP:Lead, the lead should summarise material that appears elsewhere in the article, so the only justification for updating the lead would be that it fails to accurately summarise the article as it currently stands. If that's not the case, then the discussion should centre on changes that you want made to the article body. Furius (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that makes a lot of sense. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

And let's not forget about WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE. E.g. the archaeological claims made by Ron Wyatt are pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Furius This was really helpful. Since you are familiar with Wikipedia conventions and friendly enough to explain it, can you help me out with this page? I want to update the article for reasons I explained here Talk:Abrahamic religions but not sure how to go about updating it.

To Wdford, I will look up the source material I had for his existence that wasn't covered here that I'd like to add to the body of the article. The more, the better because it doesn't seem there is much that has been mentioned yet. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Except for the bytdwd inscription, there is no attestation for David, independent of the Bible. Instead, there is a lot of evidence that David did not really had a kingdom worthy of the name kingdom. If you mean that he ruled over a loose confederation of tribes, then I might agree. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

In Jewish tradition, there is a Midrash that offers insight into the strength of the Jewish nation. It emphasizes the power of prayer and spirituality over military might, as exemplified in the story of Jacob and Esau. This narrative underscores the enduring spiritual foundation of the Jewish people. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You statement is, sorry to say it, completely off-topic. If you're fighting against mainstream academic knowledge, you cannot prevail at Wikipedia. If you are here to fight against archaeology, against the historical method, and against Bible scholarship, learn that your fight has been already lost. I can't stress this enough: Wikipedia is built upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, so if you are here to fight against mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, you lose the fight by default. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

What on earth are you talking about? I already said earlier to Wdford I will come back with sources and that has nothing to do with you.

I wrote this just to be sweet, because your statement "David did not really had a kingdom worthy of the name kingdom" was also off-topic. You took what I wrote and interpreted in the most nasty and inaccurate way possible. Don't talk to me anymore. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

What on earth are you talking about? About your behavior in other articles. You may ask me to stay off your talk page, but your requests to say off this page are void by default. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"I will come back with sources" There is no deadline here, so you can gather sources at your own pace. Out of curiosity, do you have any particular source in mind? Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I appreciate that. Yes, over the summer, I received a VIP tour at the City of David exhibition in Jerusalem and had the opportunity to see up close some of the archaeological projects underway. I know they have found some new things, but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I reached out to my contact who gave me the tour to clarify and am waiting to hear back on the details of some of the things we saw. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Direct archaeological attestation of either David or Solomon would be world news. Remember: if it is not published in a scholarly journal of scholarly book, it fails WP:V, so we cannot render it here. I'm not saying that I read much archaeological journals, but Doug Weller does. And he would likely know it before you. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are correct. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

the story has some error. First David was the second king of unified Israel as Saul's son only rule part of Israel. Secondly he did not conquer Jerusalem rather the house of Jerusalem anointed him. 87.95.8.11 (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry what? David was not Saul's son. His father was called Jesse. 41.218.206.32 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Saul basically adopted David, and refers to him as his son on several occasions. The one that comes to mind for me is when David cuts off a piece of Saul's robe and uses it to plead with him. (1 Samuel 24:16). 162.246.139.210 (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article states that David wasn't often referred to as King (Melek) is simply not true. He is often referred to King / Melek in Samuel and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.82.70 (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to the bible: 1. David was the second king of Israel 2. David took Jerusalem from the inhabitants (the Jebusites) by taking their stronghold of Zion, the city of David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davexander (talk • contribs) 01:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia does not go by primary sources (see WP:PST), the preferred are secondary academic sources. Furthermore, there is no universal Bible and there is no universal English translation. There are academic sources already in the page that clarifies this issue about Saul's son being the next king. Jerium (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It appears there might be a critical misunderstanding. The Hebrew Torah is distinguished by a precise number of characters and stands as a singular version. While other traditions may have appropriated the narrative of King David over the centuries, it is essential to recognize that, concerning the Torah itself, there exists only one version. Even within Christian and Muslim traditions, where the story has been adopted, King David is unequivocally acknowledged as a Jewish king. Hence, I advocate for placing paramount importance on the Torah's narrative over accounts written more than a millennium later.

The absence of a universal English translation poses a challenge, as the nuances present in the Hebrew text are often lost. English renditions primarily convey the Peshat, the straightforward or literal reading, leaving behind the Remez (allegorical), Derash (metaphorical), and Sod (hidden meaning) interpretations.

According to the Torah, David holds the esteemed position of being recognized as the second king of Israel. This acknowledgment is rooted in various biblical texts, particularly the Books of Samuel. A pivotal moment in David's narrative unfolds as he captures Jerusalem from the Jebusites, establishing it as the iconic city of David. This significant event is detailed in 2 Samuel 5:6-10.

Do you agree that there is considerable merit in prioritizing commentaries from universally respected poseks and scholars, such as the Rambam, as invaluable secondary sources? These commentaries often provide profound insights that may be absent in contemporary perspectives that perceive King David's story as mythological and subjective. If you hold the view that the article should deviate from the established timeline in Jewish tradition, could you offer an explanation to support this divergence? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I do think there is special importance in the Jewish narrative, other narratives being younger do not make them less WP:DUE. Remsense留 20:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. I agree. My response was prompted by the preceding statement asserting the absence of a universal Jewish Torah which is not true and an editor's preference for a recent "academic" source, which diverged from the Torah's timeline. I am emphasizing that, in discussions about the succession of kings, the Torah's timeline for King David should take precedence over an "academic" source that establishes a new timeline based on theoretical foundations or a synthesis of various narratives.

While acknowledging the value of younger narratives and traditions that independently recognize King David as a Jewish king, it is crucial to incorporate them in the appropriate sections with contextual accuracy. I believe that omitting critical moments from the text regarding his rise to power as King is not the most appropriate approach. I'm also hoping to include a Josephus source as discussed a few weeks ago once a consensus is reached. What do you think? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found an article on Purim that cites Josephus quite comfortably. When I have the chance, I will try to include some of his quotes in the article unless anyone objects or wants to discuss it further. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe paste the quotes here first, and the source, for discussion? Wdford (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok I'll do that first when I have the chance to find the quotes, thank you Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting that we use other interpretations of historical biblical images. The ubiquitous Caucasian images are outdated and even offensive in some communities. I would like to change that first image to this:

  FYI

 –  N Deleted text encoding an image of unknown provenance using base64, a technique which I've never seen before. Wow! Remsense诉 20:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jcarney79 (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: Most images are copyrighted and not usable on Wikipedia, as we only use fair use images (like album covers) when there is no non-copyrighted version available. Wikimedia Commons contains free-use images, so try looking around in commons:Category:David (Biblical figure) and its subcategories. QuietCicada chirp 14:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

As the topic says, and Abimelech was the king of Shechem, he was a king in Israel, but wasn't king of the United Kingdom of Israel. Sahar Huri (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abimelech is irrelevant. David succeded his brother-in-law Ish-bosheth, following the assassination of Ish-bosheth. Dimadick (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

caption reads that the illustration was by Josephine Pollard, I believe the original piece was from Gustave Dore in a bible where he collaborated with Pollard (who did not seem to have been an artist). Both Pollard and Dore were both deceased at the date listed and the book I believe this is from was published in 1882. I know not whether the original piece was colourised but thought it worth mentioning. I do not have an account to correct this if someone could verify my beliefs and correct accordingly I would be grateful. 2A00:23EE:17C0:8DF7:303A:B5FF:FE5F:FAA2 (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you are right. This appears to be a colorized version of Dore's illustration from 1866. It seems that all of the illustrations are available here. Thanks for spotting that. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The referring to David and Jonathan's relationship as homoerotic is misandric. Homoerotic is a buzzword with an agenda behind it. If you want to make it clear some scholars think that they were in a homosexual relationship, simply say "David and Jonathan's friendship, which some scholars debate on whether or not it was platonic or homosexual". The use of the word homoerotic is a nonsensical buzzword. According to the definition of "homoerotic", quite literally all male friendships are homoerotic, because all male friendships are two men who love each other. The usage of homoerotic is purposeful, misandric, and used to create connotations that shouldn't be there. If you would like to bring up the debated homosexual status of the relationship between David and Jonathan, merely do so honestly. 64.186.142.119 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Remsense ‥ 论 20:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply