Was King David real?

[Farnan]

King David of Israel is an important figure in the Abrahamic tradition. According to the tradition he was the ruler of Israel-Judea in the 11th Century BC and is regarded as a righteous king, and his house ruled Judea till its conquest, and according to Christian Tradition Jesus is of his house.

However, little archaeological evidence exists for him.

What do you believe?

[Prodigal]

I believe he was real... Is there any evidence to the contrary?

[Civil1z@tion]

The original writer of the books of Samuel (there are many chapters that are much later, anti-monarchy interpolations) probably lived while there was still a united Hebrew monarchy and thus is a very ancient source. David is presented as a very realistic figure and there seems to be no obvious reasons to discount his existence. If he was a legendary founder of the kingdom of Israel he probably would have been endowed with more magical powers or super human abilities. What comes out in Samuel is a somewhat troubled and very human, though highly intelligent, monarch. Combine this with some inscriptions mentioning the "house of David" and remembering that writting and civilization were at a relative low point in this period of the Near East, David seems like he likely existed to me.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Was Darius real? I mean, this is kind of a stupid question. Only extreme Bible-hating atheists will say David never existed.

[clandestino]

Well the Old Testament is some kind of historic source, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles have form of historical rather then religious book.

[Exarch]

King David of Israel is an important figure in the Abrahamic tradition. According to the tradition he was the ruler of Israel-Judea in the 11th Century BC and is regarded as a righteous king, and his house ruled Judea till its conquest, and according to Christian Tradition Jesus is of his house.

However, little archaeological evidence exists for him.

What do you believe?

IMHO, there's very little historical evidence of the king david in the bible; however, there did exist a king of judah named David but he wasnt the mighty king ruling over a mighty empire as depicted in the bible/torah:

Israel Finkelstein and Ze'ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University do not believe the archeological record supports the view that Israel at that time was a major state, but rather was a small tribal kingdom, although both Finkelstein and Silberman do accept that David and Solomon were real kings of Judah about the 10th century BC.[72] Finkelstein says in his The Bible Unearthed (2001): "[O]n the basis of archaeological surveys, Judah remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated and very marginal right up to and past the presumed time of David and Solomon, with no major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages and towns."[73] According to Ze'ev Herzog "the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom".[74]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Da...gical_evidence

[konny]

IMHO, there's very little historical evidence of the king david in the bible; however, there did exist a king of judah named David but he wasnt the mighty king ruling over a mighty empire as depicted in the bible/torah

This wouldn't be so strange for a tradition like that: An important and powerfull local warlord or petty king might be remember by the people of his tribe as that, even though his true power must not have extended beyond the next well or pasture. In the tradition of later generations he was placed on the same level as contemporary kings ruling over the entire land.

[Exarch]

This wouldn't be so strange for a tradition like that: An important and powerfull local warlord or petty king might be remember by the people of his tribe as that, even though his true power must not have extended beyond the next well or pasture. In the tradition of later generations he was placed on the same level as contemporary kings ruling over the entire land.

problem i see is territory, actual historical territory and biblical territory;
according to biblical judea, king david's territory would've reached iraq

[konny]

problem i see is territory, actual historical territory and biblical territory;
according to biblical judea, king david's territory would've reached iraq

Yes, that's what I said. He might have been a petty king ruling over a rather small territory, but the members of his tribe/clan remembered him as a powerfull man who extended his realm much beyond that what was ruled by his predecessors. Later tradition "translated" that to the bounderies of contemporary kingdoms, what would make him a high king of Judea.

On the other hand, it might also be possible that a single petty king was ranking high above the other local rulers of the respective region and was some kind of local authority. Even though his true kingdom might have been much smaller than his "zone of control".

[CtrlAltDe1337]

IMHO, there's very little historical evidence of the king david in the bible; however, there did exist a king of judah named David but he wasnt the mighty king ruling over a mighty empire as depicted in the bible/torah:

The Bible doesn't depict David as ruling over a "mighty empire"



Regardless of where some of these places are, its still not a very big area, only a little bigger than current Israel.

[jankren]

So this means Israel can be dismantled now?

Even the exodus has no evidence that it ever happened. I mean 600,000 people wandering in the desert for 40 years?

Yeah, right.

Hansel and Gretel makes 1000X more sense than that stupid story.

[Celsius]

There is historically evidence that say yes, so I would say he was real.

[Seleucos of Olympia]

I don't think the writers of the Old Testament pulled the name "David" out of thin air, so chances are he was a Judean king who reminded the Hebrews of a past golden age. However, when you get down to the details, it is quite possible that the extent of his power was overestimated by an oppressed people who longed for a past splendour, real or imagined, as Exarch wrote.

[Civil1z@tion]

I don't think the writers of the Old Testament pulled the name "David" out of thin air, so chances are he was a Judean king who reminded the Hebrews of a past golden age. However, when you get down to the details, it is quite possible that the extent of his power was overestimated by an oppressed people who longed for a past splendour, real or imagined, as Exarch wrote.

Its probable that the Israelites exagerrated David's dominion, but that doesn't mean David's kingdom couldn't have been a significant regional power. Remember the early Mid-East empires, the Egpytians and Hittites, had either collapsed or retreated and so there was something of a power vacuum in the Levant. The Israelites could quite possibly (and perhaps even probably given more definite later history) have been the greatest power in Canaan under David. That's not exactly saying a lot except that the balance of power had shifted from the coastal Phillistines to the highland Hebrews.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Theres no doubt that he existed but there are serious questions into whether or not he was righteous at all. Some theories are that he was a blood thirsty tyrant bent on conquest and sex.

[Prodigal]

Theres no doubt that he existed but there are serious questions into whether or not he was righteous at all. Some theories are that he was a blood thirsty tyrant bent on conquest and sex.

what theories?

[Blau&Gruen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

Early Iron Age is unfortunately not so good documented in the Levantine when it comes to epigraphics. The stela from Tell Dan has been seen as a potential early mentioning of David, more precisely one of his successors. It should not be left out that there are problems with the interpretation of the evidence. It is quite possible that the those parts of the Bible which contain traditions about David that have some historic likeliness. The question is only which one are these. David in the Bible is a programmatic and paradigmatic narrative figure, already a product of a long line of interpretation and may better be seen in that kind of light than in a light of historical facts. So, there is maybe a David of history and a David of tradition.

[Visna]

Theres no doubt that he existed but there are serious questions into whether or not he was righteous at all. Some theories are that he was a blood thirsty tyrant bent on conquest and sex.

The conquest is debateable, but he sent one of his soldiers on a suicide mission because he wanted to marry the man's wife.

[Blau&Gruen]

The conquest is debateable, but he sent one of his soldiers on a suicide mission because he wanted to marry the man's wife.

It is in a way understandable that even David has to be presented as imperfect because the evil is that the Children of Israel want to have a king like the nations and are not content with having the law. So, a reader could conclude with some distance (some time later)

[Visna]

It is in a way understandable that even David has to be presented as imperfect because the evil is that the children of Israel want to have a king like the nations and are not content with having the law.

Oh his story (if he existed in the first place that is) is very interesting. Characters who go through some kind of development are much more fascinating than those who don't. It was more of an effort to point out that he was not a man without flaws. And the whole story of how the Messianic myth came from the failure of the House of David to stay in power etc. is interesting stuff.

As far as historical evidence goes I seem to recall the House of David being mentioned on a tablet. It seems likely that David was a tribal chieftain who had a good deal of influence.

EDIT.

Well Imagining the world in which they lived then one could say it would take an ambitious man and not some righteous good doer to conquer the palestines and every other nation adjacent their davids kingdom.

Sure, a certain level of ruthlessness never hurts if one desires power.