This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
I have consulted "IRON AGE BULLAE FROM OFFICIALDOM'S PERIPHERY: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context." Near Eastern Archaeology, Dec2014, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p299-301. It says neither "David did it" nor "Hebrews did it". It could be equally well "Philistines did it". So, it is a leap of faith to posit the bullae as evidence for David's kingdom. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
To be sure, the press release does verify the claim that it is possible that David had a state, however the peer-reviewed scholarly article makes no mention whatsoever of David, nor of any state of Hebrews in the 10th century BCE. It does claim that the definition of state is muddy, and there might have been something like a state there in the 10th century, however it nowhere claims that it was a Hebrew state. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The press loves speculation if it is wild and sensational enough, scholars concentrate on facts and evidence. The claim that those bullae are evidence for David and Solomon is a far fetched explanation. Such claim is likely to attract funding, but would not pass through peer-review in a respectable scholarly journal. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The link between the bullae and David is missing, and without such link there is no way to attribute them to David. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Here are more links http://archaeology.org/news/2832-141216-israel-clay-seals http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/12/clay-seals-may-support-bible-story StAnselm thank you for stepping in Sadya goan ( talk) 18:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Archaeologically and historically, the redating of these cities from Solomon's era to the time of Omrides has enormous implication. It removes the only archeological evidence that there was ever a united monarchy based in Jerusalem and suggests that David and Solomon were, in political terms, little more than hill country chieftains, whose administrative reach remained on a fairy local level, restricted to the hill country.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help) Is Finkelstein antisemitic?
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
20:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)I suggest you research a little he dint attack these bullae ,(but that doesn't mean I think very highly of him) maybe you should research antisemitism and try to see who would fall under that category (it is hard for a Jew to be classified as such). Don't forget the main country that was involved in biblical criticism was Germany Sadya goan ( talk) 20:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
(it is hard for a Jew to be classified as such) = Self-hating Jew Sadya goan ( talk) 12:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why Khirbet Qeiyafa isn't mentioned in the archaeology section?? http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ and others?? For some reason I am having trouble posting it myself. Sadya goan ( talk) 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
David. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe the spelling of David's name in ancient Greek is Δαυείδ - with an epsilon. -- Irlandos ( talk) 07:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
According to The Books of The Prophets by Moffatt published in 1939 by Hodder and Stoughton, London, King David's reign is from 1016 - 976 BC in Chapter two of the introduction. I feel it is important for this to be clarified as 2016 is his 3rd millennium. Crixothia ( talk) 13:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to create an image gallery? David is so often painted and sculpted this seems like an essential part of the article, but although I copied the layout I found on the article Mary, mother of Jesus, it just doesn't work. PiCo ( talk) 07:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no consensus among historians upon a particular genealogy of Jesus being true. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
– The name "David" is so common in European languages that we can hardly say that the average person who tries to go to the page "David" wants the article on the Israeli king. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
As the page is protected I cannot edit. The Lutheran Church is not a western rite church, it is not mentioned in the attached article either. I would suggest Roman catholic should be first in the brackets and if a second is desired from a style perspective than it would be Anglican, which is mentioned in the article. Thanks Whosbasil ( talk) 21:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please stop these foolish, intellectually dishonest "CE/BCE" euphemisms and return to AD/BC nomenclature: It's obvious that "CE/BCE" uses Dionysius's dating from the time of Christ. If you want to reject this dating system, then actually do so by picking a different dating point. To use CE/BCE, i.e. to date from the time of Christ yet refuse to mention Him, is dishonest, and dishonesty has no place in any serious encyclopedia. Not only is this "Common Era"/"Before Common Era" nomenclature dishonest, it is obviously false (apart from eschatological reference to the Incarnation): The world did not share a 'common era' until the advent of the world-wide web, or perhaps World War I. Thus, the CE/BCE nomenclature degrades the quality of Wikipedia through its foolishness, dishonesty, falseness, and absurdity. Please stop using it. -- Newagelink ( talk) 09:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see where you state specific relevant reasons for one style being more appropriate than the other for this article. BCE/CE are being used more frequently and by broader demographics as time progresses. I think editing the article to BC/AD is just going to cause the next generation of editors to come back through and revert it to the new academic standard. Also, I don't see the point in using nonsecular terms to describe something as secular as the calander/date, especially since only ~30-35% of the global population are Christians. Why not use terms that are secular and inclusive for everyone instead of tacitly excluding the vast majority of the people living on the planet?
ChiXiStigma ( talk) 10:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
There are a few minor grammatical issues in this article which I tried to correct, however the page is protected at a level that prohibits me from making edits. If anyone with the appropriate edit permissions reads this and doesn't feel like proofing the whole article for a few very minor grammatical errors, please let me know and I'll post the error and the correction. ChiXiStigma ( talk) 09:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Please disregard; I was able to make the edits. ChiXiStigma ( talk) 10:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
David's activities described in the bible, after Saul turned on him but before he became king, have been described as guerilla warfare - James Kugel described that period that way ( ref) and this is even in the footnote of a bible study edition, per here. I realize that was startling and to be frank and i didn't check first to make sure that was discussed in the body, so am fine with taking that out. Jytdog ( talk) 17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Before I begin, @ Alephb:, just saw your unacceptable edits. Removing all the dates? This article is sourced with the very same references we give to biblical kings – Albright, Thiele, Dever, etc. These dates are accepted consensus fact, these calculations are used on the king entries both before and after David. Why are the dates attributed to David suddenly inaccurate? Who are you to decide? And also, your edit summary of "per talk page"? You can clearly see no such discussion ever took place on this talk page. You gained no consensus on the talk, you agreed with @ Jytdog: once and were immediately rebuked. I'm done.
Citation 28 – Kirkpatrick, A. F., Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on 1 Samuel, Section IIIa
— Josephus, Ant. VI. 14. 9, makes the same statement, adding however that he reigned 18 years during the lifetime of Samuel, and 22 years after his death, which does not agree with the facts of the history. David was 30 years old at his accession.
Kirsch, Jonathan (2000) King David: the real life of the man who ruled Israel. Ballantine. ISBN 0-345-43275-4 — p. 269
— At the age of seventy, the king of Israel…ended.
Bergen, David T. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel. B&H Publishing Group. ISBN 9780805401073., p. 31
— 1045 I Ish-Bosheth born (cf. 2 Sam 2:10)
1040 I David born (cf. 2 Sam 5:4)
1015 I Mephibosheth born (cf. 2 Sam 4:4)
Citation 83 – Commentary on II Samuel 22, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 9. II Samuel. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 1984. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-06808-5, p. 133
— Similarly, we note the years of David's life were seventy
Citation 90 – John Corbett (1911) King David The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company)
— David died at the age of seventy, having ruled Jerusalem 33 years.
Come on now. BedrockPerson ( talk) 18:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
you are making the "other stuff exists" argument. We are talking about this article, and the sourced content in the body of this article makes it clear that his historicity is unclear and the dates are tentative. The use of dates in this infobox is not warranted per WP:INFOBOX. Jytdog ( talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
-- Jytdog ( talk) 17:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Awilley your edit here - and you own it - violates WP:NPOV. I added content to the lead that is well supported in the body about negative things David did and toned down the hero-worship. You removed that and restored the blatant POV adulatory lead. This is not OK - to be clear, with your comments above and that edit, you are now INVOLVED here. And violating content policy to boot.
There are wider-ranging issues here around historicity of people described in the Bible that are distinct from the POV issues that were present int the lead. Please restore the neutral version of the lead. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 18:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Yopienso:, the claim that David was 69 or 70 has come in and out of the infobox today several times, and I originally removed it because there is no reliable source given for the claim. Given that it is a matter of Wikipedia policy that unsourced material should not be added back into an article after it has been removed, I would request that you remove the bit from the infobox where it claims David was "69 or 70" at death. Whatever you think of a several topics that are all being debated right now, I would hope we can all at least agree about WP:RS. Alephb ( talk) 22:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, there are several competing Davids. There (1) the David(s) of the biblical texts themselves, (2) the historical David(s) reconstructed by mainstream contemporary biblical scholars, (3) the David(s) reconstructed in the most conservative kinds of scholarship, and (4) the historical David(s) reconstructed by older biblical scholars before modern archaeology made scholars a lot more skeptical about relating the Bible and history. All four Davids or groups of Davids are complicated.
So, for example, a simple adding up of the reigns of the kings of Judah would suggest that David was in power 1060-1020 BCE. I can show you the work if you want. Pushing his reign forward fifty years involves from fiendishly complicated stuff with synchronizing the chronologies of Judah and Israel — fiendishly complicated stuff that has not lead to any consensus. The fact that the 1010-970 date is because of the privileging of one particular subset of the different ways one could try to reconcile all the various discrepancies in biblical chronology.
To quote Norman K. Gottwald, in The Politics of Ancient Judah, p. 54 [5], The numbers supplied for the synchronisms and durations of royal reigns do not "add up" at any number of points, probably because of any number of factors affecting the computations: incorrect transmission, and/or undisclosed fluctuations in calendar and manner of counting regnal years. Indeed, chronological difficulties also attend the prior reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. A textual lacuna means that we lack a report on the length of Saul's reign (1 Sam. 13:1), and the forty-year reigns assigned to David and Solomon may well be round numbers (1 Kings 2:1; 11:42). As a consequence, there is no consensus among the many scholars who have sought to reconcile the chronological data in Kings, nor can any be expected short of new textual discoveries.
The most important part of that quote is "there is no consensus." And that's true.
So, while one particular Wikipedia editor or another may like to say that David reigned over Judah from 1010 to 1002, and then over Judah and Israel from 1002 to 970, using that date in an infobox gives the reader a false impression. David just is not dated by consensus. The biblical data doesn't solve the problem, and the archaeological data just isn't there because the earliest detailed information on David is written 350+ years after he dies. All we know from an archaeological point of view is that by around 800 BC there was an identifiable bytdwd in the region -- not a thing about his life as a person, just the name existing for some political group.
If the infobox is there to simply communicate what the Bible says about David, the Bible does not give a single agreed-upon date for David's reign. If the infobox is there to communicate what modern historical scholarship says about David, there also isn't a single agreed-upon date for David's reign. As of now, the dates aren't justified. There is a larger discussion to be had about what details should or should not be in that infobox, and whether that infobox should clarify that it is talking about the biblical portrayal as opposed to the historical character. That's fine. But as a start, the infobox should be for summarizing key information about a character. So if the article correctly notes that the details are fuzzy, the infobox shouldn't produce a different impression Alephb ( talk) 08:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
You could go with circa dates and add a note telling the reader that nothing is certain and giving the major suggestions by Thiele and whoever. Would need to add a Notes section. PiCo ( talk) 00:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, BedrockPerson, if you want 970 in the infobox, a necessary but not sufficient condition for a move like that would be first making sure it is in the article and sourced. At your most recent addition, it was not in the article or sourced. We've had this discussion many times -- anything in an infobox must be sourced. You shouldn't add unsourced things to David, and you shouldn't do what you just did to Ish-bosheth a few minutes ago. These are simple and blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, and given the way people keep talking to you about the issue, you really should stop doing that. Of course, if it was sourced and in the infobox, it would still be a good idea to seek consensus on adding in the 970 date, but sourcing is a non-option requirement. Alephb ( talk) 16:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Me toowith edit note
Yes, OK). What has changed? Jytdog ( talk) 22:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't expect anyone wants me to completely re-write the article, do they? No, thought not. Carry on :) PiCo ( talk) 09:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't expect anyone wants me to completely re-write the article, do they? No, thought not. Carry on :) PiCo (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC) I wouldn't object. Alephb (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, no, not a complete re-write, but some improvements could be made.
The biblical vs. the historical David
There was quite a discussion about how many Davids are represented in the article. I suggest we focus on the biblical David--with all his facets and contradictions--since there really is no historical David. The historical part is what historians and archaeologists say about the biblical David. Scholars don't doubt his existence, but the only artifact supporting it is the Tel Dan stele, which attests to his dynasty, not to him as an individual. My suggestion is more about editorial direction than revision of the current article, which I think treats it well by presenting the
Biblical account and then
David in history, archeology and literature.
Suggested improvements
I suggest expanding the
Family sub-section of the "Biblical account" to include David's dynasty (The House of David or
Davidic line), which is an important biblical theme.
Finkelstein and Silberman, p. 129, is a good source: "This [the Tel Dan stele] is dramatic evidence of the fame of the Davidic dynasty..."
Finkelstein and Silberman support the idea than the dynasty is important to mention in the "Biblical account" section.
The section " David as psalmist and musician" should be a subsection of the "Biblical account" section, imo, and needs to be rewritten. Brettler and Zvi, "Psalms," The Jewish Study Bible, pp. 1281-82, is a good source. Mention should be made of David's harp-playing for Saul, and of his institution of a choir to sing before the Ark of the Covenant. 1 Chr. 16:4. I think it's important to keep "the sweet psalmist of Israel" because it's a well-known epithet.
The section "David in history, archeology and literature" seems quite good to me since it covers in a neutral fashion the development of scholarly thought and the various opinions offered by the academic community. I suggest adding a paragraph or section about dates, citing to Thiele, Gottwald, Finkelstein and Silberman, Eerdman's and others for a rounded view of the debate, weighted toward modern MS scholarship.
Sections 4-6 seem appropriate and are chronological. Should the lead mention that David is a revered figure in the Abrahamic religions?
The "Modern art and literature" section is important, imo, but seems to have too many entries in the "Literature" sub-section and not enough in the "Paintings" and "Sculptures" sub-sections, which I just opened and can't presently enlarge. YoPienso ( talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Under the subheading "Film", the link "David and Bathsheba" redirects one to this page about Bathsheba: /info/en/?search=Bathsheba . The link should take one to this page about the 1951 film "David and Bathsheba": /info/en/?search=David_and_Bathsheba_(film) . RhavinBanda ( talk) 06:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggested Edit:
from:
===Sculptures=== *'''1440?''' [[Donatello]] ''[[David (Donatello)|David]]'' *'''1501-04''' [[Michelangelo]], ''[[David (Michelangelo)|David]]''
to:
=== Sculptures === * ''[[David (Donatello)|David]]'', [[bronze]] statue by [[Donatello]], ca. 1440 * ''[[David (Verrocchio)|David]]'', bronze statue by [[Verrocchio]], ca. 1475 * ''[[David (Michelangelo)|David]]'', [[marble]] statue by [[Michelangelo]], 1504 * ''[[David (Bernini)|David]]'', marble statue by [[Bernini]], 1624
or something along those lines.
Maybe some kind of connection to
Category: Sculptures depicting David might also be appropriate.
--
BjKa (
talk)
17:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
God denies him the opportunity to build the temple... This is misleading to assert it as a fact. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
References
The lede says "As king, David arranges the death of Uriah the Hittite to cover his adultery with Bathsheba." Bathsheba did not commit adultery. It is misleading to suggest Bathsheba committed adultery. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The three sources I was talking about were QuackGuru's, at the top of the thread. I didn't challenge Anselm's sources. Alephb ( talk) 02:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
"As king, David arranges the death of Uriah the Hittite to cover his adultery with Bathsheba." needs to be clarified. Change to "As king, David arranges the death of Uriah the Hittite to cover his adultery or rape of Bathsheba." QuackGuru ( talk) 02:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a reprint of a 1991 book and has only one author, we either use his formal name or his nickname. If we use it at all. Why should we? Is the concept of an age old struggle between angels and demons mainstream? [6] Just curious, seems odd. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to see this feminist POV giving undue weight to one incident in David's life. When QuackGuru gets tired and goes home maybe we can pare it down to size. YoPienso ( talk) 00:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Alephb: Hi! I think the person who titled the image here made capitalization errors. The original was in all caps, so impossible to tell for sure, but easy to assume normal capitalization rules should be followed. [https://www.amazon.com/Art-Bible-Comprising-Old-Testaments/dp/B001PRU0CA Amazon] gives the title as The Art Bible: Comprising The Old And New Testaments. Regards, YoPienso ( talk) 00:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I find it strange that in at least two instances, the question of whether Bathsheba consented to sex with David or did not consent is so conspicuously placed. Do we question all other instances of ancient marriage? I really do hope we're not on some modern context crusade here. Let the article be about what the article is about without modern day, out of context social commentary. I think it needs to be removed, but of course, I won't just go ahead and do so since it would be reverted anyway. Jersey John ( talk) 04:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
You removed reliable secondary sources and left trivial text. I reverted your edits. Dimadick ( talk) 06:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The passages under discussion are:
Anglican theologian Donald Spence Jones holds that, "one of the most beautiful characteristics of David’s many-sided nature was this enduring loyalty to Saul and to Saul’s house". [1]
and
Larry Richards and Lawrence O. Richards state that the biblical text supports the innocence of Bathsheba, that David took the initiative to find out her identity and summon her, and that she was alone at the time and had no way to refuse the requests of a king. [2] David J. Zucker writes that "She is a victim of 'power rape'". [3] Andrew J. Schmutzer stated that "David's "taking" Bathsheba makes him responsible for her coming to him." [4] Antony F. Campbell states "The 'violation of Bathsheba' may be the least unsatisfactory terminology, especially given the ambivalence of the text's storytelling." [5]
References
RichardsRichards2002
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Zucker2013
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Campbell2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).In general this section should just narrate, without commentary.
In my view the topmost one is just some random praise pulled out of biblehub (we have way, way too many articles sourced to these commentaries on biblehub which people grab because they are online, not because they are best) and the "one of the most beautiful characteristics" language is puffery that has no place in an encyclopedia, in my view. I thought about whether this might belong somewhere else in the article, but I see no value to it, per se. A section on commentary on the relationship between David and the House of Saul might be interesting. But this adds no value.
The second one could have value in a section on "Interaction with Bathsheba" or the like, which has a rich history of tradition in Jewish and Christian traditions (I am ignorant of what the Islamic tradition has done with it) but have parked here for now... Jytdog ( talk) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Can they be at least partly collapsed? They take up a lot of vertical space and push the pictures downward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it doesn't say whether Bathsheba consented doesn't need to be there. This is super obvious editorialising. Does it say whether any of his other wives consented? Is this anything more than speculation? Liempt ( talk) 00:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Unconstructive commentary
|
---|
"knocking people off pedestals" You have got to be kidding. The entire narrative concerning Uriah the Hittite casts David as a murderer, who willingly send one of his own men to a suicide mission, in order to get rid of him and steal his wife. Several other instances in the Books of Samuel do not cast David in a favorable light. The Nabal narrative casts David as the leader of a group of outlaws, who demand rewards for their "protection" from property owners. The Amnon narrative has David refusing to discipline or punish his heir-apparent, who has recently raped one of his half-sisters. The Absalom narrative has Absalom winning the support of would-be rebels by specifically accusing David of being a king who refuses to offer justice to his people: "If only I were the judge of the land! Then all who had a suit or cause might come to me, and I would give them justice." Part of the primary sources on David are hostile to him, they do not place him on a pedestal. It is not some kind of novel interpretation that he was neither a perfect king, nor a a perfect human. One interpretation is that the Books of Samuel, which depict him, incorporate materials from older, lost sources. One of them was a so-called "Republican source", with a clear anti-monarchial bias. See for example "monarchy"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE0MjLuYnYAhUBCZoKHbNWAwoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=david&f=false 1 and 2 Samuel by Robert P. Gordon, which notes that part of the text is accusing David for several of his actions, while other parts are trying to defend him from accusations that he had benefited from a series of violent deaths and other crimes. "monarchy"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE0MjLuYnYAhUBCZoKHbNWAwoQ6AEIMjAC#v=onepage&q=david&f=false Another source notes that in his encounter with Nabal, David is little more than an outlaw demanding protection money. His message is an act of intimidation, and a threat to confiscate Nabal's property. He asks for whatever Nabal has at hand, and reminds Nabal that he has not done any harm to his flocks ... yet. Dimadick ( talk) 12:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
|
How is it possible that this page doesn't have Michelangelo's David. That's very weird, and incomplete, as it's the most famous artwork about him. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:58DA:1F2B:3676:8AF1 ( talk) 10:18 pm, Today (UTC−5)
I have found that your edit summary is very vague.
[7]. The content you have restored They posit that Israel and Judah were still
polytheistic in the time of David and Solomon, and that much later seventh-century redactors sought to portray a past golden age of a united, monotheistic monarchy in order to serve contemporary needs
is nowhere in the source cited. I changed it citing that the former text was source misrepresentation. Either that or a case of
WP:FAKE.
JosephusOfJerusalem (
talk)
14:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Why the page is protected? if this site is the site of people, please explain what you do.
In response to the above: It is also exceedingly inappropriate to state as fact that the Book(s) of Samuel are a product of Josiah and subsequent "expansion" during Babylonian captivity. This is a deliberate and appalling creation of a narrative for a preconceived and dishonest objective. That position is one among many, and other positions reflect archeological discovery (vis. The Tel-Dan Stela). For my own part - I am a student of History and a Philosopher - to see one side of an argument presented as absolute fact is completely unacceptable, and represents an alarming ossification at best, but is clearly an unaccountable stab at propagandizing a contentious issue.
To claim that a text is a lie - and that IS the claim in dating Samuel (etc...) past their stated eras - is a claim that REQUIRES very conclusive substantiation. To make such a claim WITHOUT substantiation, and then DELIBERATELY OBSCURE AND PREVENT DIALOGUE is nothing shy of intellectual tyranny.
The authoritarian declaration inherent in this page is reprehensible. Locking the page is COMPLETELY at odds with everything that Wikipedia stands for - SO WHAT if it is contentious? That's the point!
Abject shame on you Wikipedia - this is exceedingly dishonest and in direct opposition to the entire purpose of the community.
You deliberately ignore anything but one camp? How dare you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.181.228 ( talk) 01:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This article states correctly that David is told that because he took Bathsheva from her husband and sent him to his death, his first child will die. The article is incorrect in stating that this child was Absalom. It was the first born of Bathsheva (unnamed in the text) as follows in 2Samuel 12:
15 Then Nathan went home. And the Lord caused the son of David and Bathsheba, Uriah’s widow, to be very sick. 16 David prayed to God for the baby. David fasted and went into his house and stayed there, lying on the ground all night. 17 The elders of David’s family came to him and tried to pull him up from the ground, but he refused to get up or to eat food with them.
18 On the seventh day the baby died.
This is directly in the text. Absalom's death came later. Absalom's mother was Maacah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naftalisz ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making this section a separate article, similar to Nephilim#Popular_culture. "Cultural depictions of David", probably. It is/can be well-sourced, but is given a lot of room here (though I've seen worse), especially in the ToC. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Some big citation issues here, in fact no citation is used at all in the opening section of the page. Many places you would hope to find a citation, there are none. Can we please work on fixing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.80.171 ( talk) 12:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's the note at the beginning of the introduction:
(/ˈdeɪvɪd/; Hebrew: דָּוִד, Modern: Davīd, Tiberian: Dāwīḏ; Ancient Greek: Δαυίδ, translit. Davíd; Latin: Davidus, David; Ge'ez: ዳዊት, Dawit; Old Armenian: Դաւիթ, Dawitʿ; Church Slavonic: Давíдъ, Davidŭ; possibly meaning "beloved one"[1])
Why is this relegated to a note? And why is it so long anyway? With the exception of English (because this is en:wp) and Hebrew (the original language), I don't see why any of these belong here, since they're just derivatives of the original. Maybe they'd fit in an article about the name, but one can have a full understanding of the biblical figure without knowing his name in ancient Greek, Ge'ez, or Old Armenian. Nyttend ( talk) 16:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"one can have a full understanding of the biblical figure without knowing his name in ancient Greek"
Wrong. Many of the texts written about him belong to the Septuagint and its derivatives. Dimadick ( talk) 17:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I want to second Nyttend's contention that ALL of these other than ancient Hebrew and modern English are pointless cruft as far as the intro goes. There may be places in the article body where they are relevant, there may be other articles where they are relevant, but in the intro here they are pointless. -- Khajidha ( talk) 16:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an interesting one. Sure, to a Jew or Christian it sounds strange, but if Muslims consider David to be Muslim, don't we have to show both in the infobox? See Prophets and messengers in Islam. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox monarch}}
doesn't really have parameters for this.
Jytdog (
talk)
15:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)@Awilley: First I’ve got to correct a few things. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint...not Mormons, not LDS or Latter-Day Saints. The term “Mormon” is a somewhat derogatory nickname given to our church because we believe that The Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ. We believe that Jospeh Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration but he is not the “latest prophet in the cycle of restorations and fallings away” as you described. (The term is Apostasy, by the way) there have been many prophets since Joseph Smith. The current (and 17th) prophet is Russell M. Nelson.
We do not consider King David a “Mormon.” He wasn’t even the prophet...(Samuel was the Prophet, Succeeded by Nathan). David was a King of the Old Testament and an Israelite. From the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob they were called Israelites or The Children if Israel.
There was a division of Israel at the time of Solomon (~925 B.C.) When the kingdom split between the 10 tribes of Israel in the northern kingdom and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the south. The northern kingdom retained the name of Israelites (despite a severe falling away from the Abrahamic Covenant and the Law of Moses). The Southern Kingdom became known as Judah, or the Jews.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not view David as a “Mormon” any more than Islam views Abraham as a Christian.
Abraham is considered the common patriarch of 3 different religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
Awilley, I think you’re missing the mark on this discussion: Should David have a note in an info box linking him to Islam?
Let’s review a couple facts here: 1) One of the definitions of what Wikipedia is (as provided by Wikipedia on their “About” page) is a “Collective memory – shared pool of information held in the memories of two or more members of a group”. Other definitions provided are “Database – organized collection of data” and “Reference work – compendium of information.”
2) The Torah and Old Testament, The New Testament, The Book of Mormon, the Quran, The Apocrypha are all considered factual and accurate documentations of history by their respective religions despite the fact that there is great controversy and debate by scientists, historians, atheists and archaeologists as to the validity of these sources. Even the article above addresses the fact that outside of the Bible there is virtually no proof to support that King David and the Kingdom of Israel ever existed. Does that mean we should relegate David to the subject of fantasy and fiction?
Regardless of whether you agree with a religion or common cultural point of view, the fact remains that that religion or POV is a cultural source of information that should be included in such an encyclopedic endeavor to gather so much information into one place such as Wikipedia. We’re looking for Information here, not truth, necessarily, but documentation that there is a group of people that believes a certain thing.
Should there be a note letting readers know that David is considered an Islamic prophet by Muslims? Yes. Is this a slippery slope that will open the door to unfounded subjective reasoning? Are you serious? DWHofmanm ( talk) 18:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
There is nowhere in the scripture that suggests David asked Bathsheba's permission or consent. He raped her. This was not an affair. Furthermore, the story that Nathan tells David to rebuke him specifically says the lamb was stolen, therefore, David stole Bathsheba and raped her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.63.42 ( talk) 00:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There are very plausible arguments to both David power-raping Bath-Sheba and to Bath-Sheba seducing the King in order to rise to become the most powerful woman in the known world at the time.
As it stands, there are currently no solid sources confirming either point of view as correct. We can’t know what really happened. DWHofmanm ( talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"A different version is told in 1 Samuel 27:1–4, in which Saul ceased to pursue David because David took refuge a second[30] time with Achish, the Philistine king of Gath." Doug Weller, others, we should probably have a source stating that this a different version, it may not be obvious to many readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This Statue by Michelangelo is a much better statue than the one made by Nicolas Cordier, so wouldn't it be better to use the Michalangelo statue as the image for the infobox?( Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite ( talk) 01:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)).
Discussion about to what extent "Biblical account" sections (and similar) needs secondary sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
There's been some back and forth editing on if David is the second or third king. Anyone want to talk about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The first is Saul, the second is Ish-bosheth. David usurps the throne after the assassination of Ish-bosheth. What more is there to discuss? Dimadick ( talk) 22:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
According to the Hebrew Bible, Ishboshet was never the "king of the Unified Kingdoms of Israel and Judah". David was acclaimed king of Judah, after that Ishboshet was declared king of Israel, then he was killed and David became king of the Unified Kingdom. David is the second king according to the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Encyclopedia, [ Britannica], etc. Sources added to the article. 2A01:CB09:B04B:815F:50D5:9E4:977B:2260 ( talk) 18:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Dimadick, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Sir Joseph: Looking at the sources that the IP added in the infobox to support the ideal that David was the second king of Israel is highly questionable. Starting with the oldest source, the Jewish Encyclopedia is dated to 1901-1906 and is therefore outdated, and the Britannica source is an overview of David's life according to J. Coert Rylaarsdam. It does not provide any scholarly thoughts on the matter or any other thoughts on scholarly disputes. The beginning even states that David flourished 1000 BC, but the site does not provide any evidence to support that date. The rest of the article is based on the primary source via the Bible, but the author of the page didn't even have the decency to provide Biblical chapters and verses to confirm any of the content, pure laziness. The Bible has different scenarios as to how David became king. Looking at the Biblical chapters/verses, David did not become king of Israel after Saul's death. He was anointed king only by the tribe of Judah. He ruled Judah in Hebron. His reign of Judah was seven years and six months before becoming king of Israel, and it shouldn't be difficult to figure out who ruled everything else while David was king of Judah. Primary source: 2 Samuel Ch. 2:2 - 11. Jerm ( talk) 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång I've restored Ish-bosheth back as predecessor, and added academic sources for support. Jerm ( talk) 03:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It is like debating how many angels can fit of the top of a needle. It seems highly likely that a Davidic-Solomonic United Monarchy never existed, so it is much ado for nothing. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
I have consulted "IRON AGE BULLAE FROM OFFICIALDOM'S PERIPHERY: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context." Near Eastern Archaeology, Dec2014, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p299-301. It says neither "David did it" nor "Hebrews did it". It could be equally well "Philistines did it". So, it is a leap of faith to posit the bullae as evidence for David's kingdom. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
To be sure, the press release does verify the claim that it is possible that David had a state, however the peer-reviewed scholarly article makes no mention whatsoever of David, nor of any state of Hebrews in the 10th century BCE. It does claim that the definition of state is muddy, and there might have been something like a state there in the 10th century, however it nowhere claims that it was a Hebrew state. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The press loves speculation if it is wild and sensational enough, scholars concentrate on facts and evidence. The claim that those bullae are evidence for David and Solomon is a far fetched explanation. Such claim is likely to attract funding, but would not pass through peer-review in a respectable scholarly journal. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The link between the bullae and David is missing, and without such link there is no way to attribute them to David. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Here are more links http://archaeology.org/news/2832-141216-israel-clay-seals http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/12/clay-seals-may-support-bible-story StAnselm thank you for stepping in Sadya goan ( talk) 18:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Archaeologically and historically, the redating of these cities from Solomon's era to the time of Omrides has enormous implication. It removes the only archeological evidence that there was ever a united monarchy based in Jerusalem and suggests that David and Solomon were, in political terms, little more than hill country chieftains, whose administrative reach remained on a fairy local level, restricted to the hill country.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help) Is Finkelstein antisemitic?
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
20:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)I suggest you research a little he dint attack these bullae ,(but that doesn't mean I think very highly of him) maybe you should research antisemitism and try to see who would fall under that category (it is hard for a Jew to be classified as such). Don't forget the main country that was involved in biblical criticism was Germany Sadya goan ( talk) 20:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
(it is hard for a Jew to be classified as such) = Self-hating Jew Sadya goan ( talk) 12:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why Khirbet Qeiyafa isn't mentioned in the archaeology section?? http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ and others?? For some reason I am having trouble posting it myself. Sadya goan ( talk) 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
David. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe the spelling of David's name in ancient Greek is Δαυείδ - with an epsilon. -- Irlandos ( talk) 07:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
According to The Books of The Prophets by Moffatt published in 1939 by Hodder and Stoughton, London, King David's reign is from 1016 - 976 BC in Chapter two of the introduction. I feel it is important for this to be clarified as 2016 is his 3rd millennium. Crixothia ( talk) 13:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to create an image gallery? David is so often painted and sculpted this seems like an essential part of the article, but although I copied the layout I found on the article Mary, mother of Jesus, it just doesn't work. PiCo ( talk) 07:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no consensus among historians upon a particular genealogy of Jesus being true. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
– The name "David" is so common in European languages that we can hardly say that the average person who tries to go to the page "David" wants the article on the Israeli king. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
As the page is protected I cannot edit. The Lutheran Church is not a western rite church, it is not mentioned in the attached article either. I would suggest Roman catholic should be first in the brackets and if a second is desired from a style perspective than it would be Anglican, which is mentioned in the article. Thanks Whosbasil ( talk) 21:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please stop these foolish, intellectually dishonest "CE/BCE" euphemisms and return to AD/BC nomenclature: It's obvious that "CE/BCE" uses Dionysius's dating from the time of Christ. If you want to reject this dating system, then actually do so by picking a different dating point. To use CE/BCE, i.e. to date from the time of Christ yet refuse to mention Him, is dishonest, and dishonesty has no place in any serious encyclopedia. Not only is this "Common Era"/"Before Common Era" nomenclature dishonest, it is obviously false (apart from eschatological reference to the Incarnation): The world did not share a 'common era' until the advent of the world-wide web, or perhaps World War I. Thus, the CE/BCE nomenclature degrades the quality of Wikipedia through its foolishness, dishonesty, falseness, and absurdity. Please stop using it. -- Newagelink ( talk) 09:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see where you state specific relevant reasons for one style being more appropriate than the other for this article. BCE/CE are being used more frequently and by broader demographics as time progresses. I think editing the article to BC/AD is just going to cause the next generation of editors to come back through and revert it to the new academic standard. Also, I don't see the point in using nonsecular terms to describe something as secular as the calander/date, especially since only ~30-35% of the global population are Christians. Why not use terms that are secular and inclusive for everyone instead of tacitly excluding the vast majority of the people living on the planet?
ChiXiStigma ( talk) 10:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
There are a few minor grammatical issues in this article which I tried to correct, however the page is protected at a level that prohibits me from making edits. If anyone with the appropriate edit permissions reads this and doesn't feel like proofing the whole article for a few very minor grammatical errors, please let me know and I'll post the error and the correction. ChiXiStigma ( talk) 09:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Please disregard; I was able to make the edits. ChiXiStigma ( talk) 10:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
David's activities described in the bible, after Saul turned on him but before he became king, have been described as guerilla warfare - James Kugel described that period that way ( ref) and this is even in the footnote of a bible study edition, per here. I realize that was startling and to be frank and i didn't check first to make sure that was discussed in the body, so am fine with taking that out. Jytdog ( talk) 17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Before I begin, @ Alephb:, just saw your unacceptable edits. Removing all the dates? This article is sourced with the very same references we give to biblical kings – Albright, Thiele, Dever, etc. These dates are accepted consensus fact, these calculations are used on the king entries both before and after David. Why are the dates attributed to David suddenly inaccurate? Who are you to decide? And also, your edit summary of "per talk page"? You can clearly see no such discussion ever took place on this talk page. You gained no consensus on the talk, you agreed with @ Jytdog: once and were immediately rebuked. I'm done.
Citation 28 – Kirkpatrick, A. F., Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on 1 Samuel, Section IIIa
— Josephus, Ant. VI. 14. 9, makes the same statement, adding however that he reigned 18 years during the lifetime of Samuel, and 22 years after his death, which does not agree with the facts of the history. David was 30 years old at his accession.
Kirsch, Jonathan (2000) King David: the real life of the man who ruled Israel. Ballantine. ISBN 0-345-43275-4 — p. 269
— At the age of seventy, the king of Israel…ended.
Bergen, David T. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel. B&H Publishing Group. ISBN 9780805401073., p. 31
— 1045 I Ish-Bosheth born (cf. 2 Sam 2:10)
1040 I David born (cf. 2 Sam 5:4)
1015 I Mephibosheth born (cf. 2 Sam 4:4)
Citation 83 – Commentary on II Samuel 22, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 9. II Samuel. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 1984. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-06808-5, p. 133
— Similarly, we note the years of David's life were seventy
Citation 90 – John Corbett (1911) King David The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company)
— David died at the age of seventy, having ruled Jerusalem 33 years.
Come on now. BedrockPerson ( talk) 18:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
you are making the "other stuff exists" argument. We are talking about this article, and the sourced content in the body of this article makes it clear that his historicity is unclear and the dates are tentative. The use of dates in this infobox is not warranted per WP:INFOBOX. Jytdog ( talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
-- Jytdog ( talk) 17:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Awilley your edit here - and you own it - violates WP:NPOV. I added content to the lead that is well supported in the body about negative things David did and toned down the hero-worship. You removed that and restored the blatant POV adulatory lead. This is not OK - to be clear, with your comments above and that edit, you are now INVOLVED here. And violating content policy to boot.
There are wider-ranging issues here around historicity of people described in the Bible that are distinct from the POV issues that were present int the lead. Please restore the neutral version of the lead. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 18:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Yopienso:, the claim that David was 69 or 70 has come in and out of the infobox today several times, and I originally removed it because there is no reliable source given for the claim. Given that it is a matter of Wikipedia policy that unsourced material should not be added back into an article after it has been removed, I would request that you remove the bit from the infobox where it claims David was "69 or 70" at death. Whatever you think of a several topics that are all being debated right now, I would hope we can all at least agree about WP:RS. Alephb ( talk) 22:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, there are several competing Davids. There (1) the David(s) of the biblical texts themselves, (2) the historical David(s) reconstructed by mainstream contemporary biblical scholars, (3) the David(s) reconstructed in the most conservative kinds of scholarship, and (4) the historical David(s) reconstructed by older biblical scholars before modern archaeology made scholars a lot more skeptical about relating the Bible and history. All four Davids or groups of Davids are complicated.
So, for example, a simple adding up of the reigns of the kings of Judah would suggest that David was in power 1060-1020 BCE. I can show you the work if you want. Pushing his reign forward fifty years involves from fiendishly complicated stuff with synchronizing the chronologies of Judah and Israel — fiendishly complicated stuff that has not lead to any consensus. The fact that the 1010-970 date is because of the privileging of one particular subset of the different ways one could try to reconcile all the various discrepancies in biblical chronology.
To quote Norman K. Gottwald, in The Politics of Ancient Judah, p. 54 [5], The numbers supplied for the synchronisms and durations of royal reigns do not "add up" at any number of points, probably because of any number of factors affecting the computations: incorrect transmission, and/or undisclosed fluctuations in calendar and manner of counting regnal years. Indeed, chronological difficulties also attend the prior reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. A textual lacuna means that we lack a report on the length of Saul's reign (1 Sam. 13:1), and the forty-year reigns assigned to David and Solomon may well be round numbers (1 Kings 2:1; 11:42). As a consequence, there is no consensus among the many scholars who have sought to reconcile the chronological data in Kings, nor can any be expected short of new textual discoveries.
The most important part of that quote is "there is no consensus." And that's true.
So, while one particular Wikipedia editor or another may like to say that David reigned over Judah from 1010 to 1002, and then over Judah and Israel from 1002 to 970, using that date in an infobox gives the reader a false impression. David just is not dated by consensus. The biblical data doesn't solve the problem, and the archaeological data just isn't there because the earliest detailed information on David is written 350+ years after he dies. All we know from an archaeological point of view is that by around 800 BC there was an identifiable bytdwd in the region -- not a thing about his life as a person, just the name existing for some political group.
If the infobox is there to simply communicate what the Bible says about David, the Bible does not give a single agreed-upon date for David's reign. If the infobox is there to communicate what modern historical scholarship says about David, there also isn't a single agreed-upon date for David's reign. As of now, the dates aren't justified. There is a larger discussion to be had about what details should or should not be in that infobox, and whether that infobox should clarify that it is talking about the biblical portrayal as opposed to the historical character. That's fine. But as a start, the infobox should be for summarizing key information about a character. So if the article correctly notes that the details are fuzzy, the infobox shouldn't produce a different impression Alephb ( talk) 08:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
You could go with circa dates and add a note telling the reader that nothing is certain and giving the major suggestions by Thiele and whoever. Would need to add a Notes section. PiCo ( talk) 00:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, BedrockPerson, if you want 970 in the infobox, a necessary but not sufficient condition for a move like that would be first making sure it is in the article and sourced. At your most recent addition, it was not in the article or sourced. We've had this discussion many times -- anything in an infobox must be sourced. You shouldn't add unsourced things to David, and you shouldn't do what you just did to Ish-bosheth a few minutes ago. These are simple and blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, and given the way people keep talking to you about the issue, you really should stop doing that. Of course, if it was sourced and in the infobox, it would still be a good idea to seek consensus on adding in the 970 date, but sourcing is a non-option requirement. Alephb ( talk) 16:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Me toowith edit note
Yes, OK). What has changed? Jytdog ( talk) 22:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't expect anyone wants me to completely re-write the article, do they? No, thought not. Carry on :) PiCo ( talk) 09:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't expect anyone wants me to completely re-write the article, do they? No, thought not. Carry on :) PiCo (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC) I wouldn't object. Alephb (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, no, not a complete re-write, but some improvements could be made.
The biblical vs. the historical David
There was quite a discussion about how many Davids are represented in the article. I suggest we focus on the biblical David--with all his facets and contradictions--since there really is no historical David. The historical part is what historians and archaeologists say about the biblical David. Scholars don't doubt his existence, but the only artifact supporting it is the Tel Dan stele, which attests to his dynasty, not to him as an individual. My suggestion is more about editorial direction than revision of the current article, which I think treats it well by presenting the
Biblical account and then
David in history, archeology and literature.
Suggested improvements
I suggest expanding the
Family sub-section of the "Biblical account" to include David's dynasty (The House of David or
Davidic line), which is an important biblical theme.
Finkelstein and Silberman, p. 129, is a good source: "This [the Tel Dan stele] is dramatic evidence of the fame of the Davidic dynasty..."
Finkelstein and Silberman support the idea than the dynasty is important to mention in the "Biblical account" section.
The section " David as psalmist and musician" should be a subsection of the "Biblical account" section, imo, and needs to be rewritten. Brettler and Zvi, "Psalms," The Jewish Study Bible, pp. 1281-82, is a good source. Mention should be made of David's harp-playing for Saul, and of his institution of a choir to sing before the Ark of the Covenant. 1 Chr. 16:4. I think it's important to keep "the sweet psalmist of Israel" because it's a well-known epithet.
The section "David in history, archeology and literature" seems quite good to me since it covers in a neutral fashion the development of scholarly thought and the various opinions offered by the academic community. I suggest adding a paragraph or section about dates, citing to Thiele, Gottwald, Finkelstein and Silberman, Eerdman's and others for a rounded view of the debate, weighted toward modern MS scholarship.
Sections 4-6 seem appropriate and are chronological. Should the lead mention that David is a revered figure in the Abrahamic religions?
The "Modern art and literature" section is important, imo, but seems to have too many entries in the "Literature" sub-section and not enough in the "Paintings" and "Sculptures" sub-sections, which I just opened and can't presently enlarge. YoPienso ( talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Under the subheading "Film", the link "David and Bathsheba" redirects one to this page about Bathsheba: /info/en/?search=Bathsheba . The link should take one to this page about the 1951 film "David and Bathsheba": /info/en/?search=David_and_Bathsheba_(film) . RhavinBanda ( talk) 06:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggested Edit:
from:
===Sculptures=== *'''1440?''' [[Donatello]] ''[[David (Donatello)|David]]'' *'''1501-04''' [[Michelangelo]], ''[[David (Michelangelo)|David]]''
to:
=== Sculptures === * ''[[David (Donatello)|David]]'', [[bronze]] statue by [[Donatello]], ca. 1440 * ''[[David (Verrocchio)|David]]'', bronze statue by [[Verrocchio]], ca. 1475 * ''[[David (Michelangelo)|David]]'', [[marble]] statue by [[Michelangelo]], 1504 * ''[[David (Bernini)|David]]'', marble statue by [[Bernini]], 1624
or something along those lines.
Maybe some kind of connection to
Category: Sculptures depicting David might also be appropriate.
--
BjKa (
talk)
17:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
God denies him the opportunity to build the temple... This is misleading to assert it as a fact. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
References
The lede says "As king, David arranges the death of Uriah the Hittite to cover his adultery with Bathsheba." Bathsheba did not commit adultery. It is misleading to suggest Bathsheba committed adultery. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The three sources I was talking about were QuackGuru's, at the top of the thread. I didn't challenge Anselm's sources. Alephb ( talk) 02:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
"As king, David arranges the death of Uriah the Hittite to cover his adultery with Bathsheba." needs to be clarified. Change to "As king, David arranges the death of Uriah the Hittite to cover his adultery or rape of Bathsheba." QuackGuru ( talk) 02:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a reprint of a 1991 book and has only one author, we either use his formal name or his nickname. If we use it at all. Why should we? Is the concept of an age old struggle between angels and demons mainstream? [6] Just curious, seems odd. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to see this feminist POV giving undue weight to one incident in David's life. When QuackGuru gets tired and goes home maybe we can pare it down to size. YoPienso ( talk) 00:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Alephb: Hi! I think the person who titled the image here made capitalization errors. The original was in all caps, so impossible to tell for sure, but easy to assume normal capitalization rules should be followed. [https://www.amazon.com/Art-Bible-Comprising-Old-Testaments/dp/B001PRU0CA Amazon] gives the title as The Art Bible: Comprising The Old And New Testaments. Regards, YoPienso ( talk) 00:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I find it strange that in at least two instances, the question of whether Bathsheba consented to sex with David or did not consent is so conspicuously placed. Do we question all other instances of ancient marriage? I really do hope we're not on some modern context crusade here. Let the article be about what the article is about without modern day, out of context social commentary. I think it needs to be removed, but of course, I won't just go ahead and do so since it would be reverted anyway. Jersey John ( talk) 04:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
You removed reliable secondary sources and left trivial text. I reverted your edits. Dimadick ( talk) 06:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The passages under discussion are:
Anglican theologian Donald Spence Jones holds that, "one of the most beautiful characteristics of David’s many-sided nature was this enduring loyalty to Saul and to Saul’s house". [1]
and
Larry Richards and Lawrence O. Richards state that the biblical text supports the innocence of Bathsheba, that David took the initiative to find out her identity and summon her, and that she was alone at the time and had no way to refuse the requests of a king. [2] David J. Zucker writes that "She is a victim of 'power rape'". [3] Andrew J. Schmutzer stated that "David's "taking" Bathsheba makes him responsible for her coming to him." [4] Antony F. Campbell states "The 'violation of Bathsheba' may be the least unsatisfactory terminology, especially given the ambivalence of the text's storytelling." [5]
References
RichardsRichards2002
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Zucker2013
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Campbell2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).In general this section should just narrate, without commentary.
In my view the topmost one is just some random praise pulled out of biblehub (we have way, way too many articles sourced to these commentaries on biblehub which people grab because they are online, not because they are best) and the "one of the most beautiful characteristics" language is puffery that has no place in an encyclopedia, in my view. I thought about whether this might belong somewhere else in the article, but I see no value to it, per se. A section on commentary on the relationship between David and the House of Saul might be interesting. But this adds no value.
The second one could have value in a section on "Interaction with Bathsheba" or the like, which has a rich history of tradition in Jewish and Christian traditions (I am ignorant of what the Islamic tradition has done with it) but have parked here for now... Jytdog ( talk) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Can they be at least partly collapsed? They take up a lot of vertical space and push the pictures downward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it doesn't say whether Bathsheba consented doesn't need to be there. This is super obvious editorialising. Does it say whether any of his other wives consented? Is this anything more than speculation? Liempt ( talk) 00:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Unconstructive commentary
|
---|
"knocking people off pedestals" You have got to be kidding. The entire narrative concerning Uriah the Hittite casts David as a murderer, who willingly send one of his own men to a suicide mission, in order to get rid of him and steal his wife. Several other instances in the Books of Samuel do not cast David in a favorable light. The Nabal narrative casts David as the leader of a group of outlaws, who demand rewards for their "protection" from property owners. The Amnon narrative has David refusing to discipline or punish his heir-apparent, who has recently raped one of his half-sisters. The Absalom narrative has Absalom winning the support of would-be rebels by specifically accusing David of being a king who refuses to offer justice to his people: "If only I were the judge of the land! Then all who had a suit or cause might come to me, and I would give them justice." Part of the primary sources on David are hostile to him, they do not place him on a pedestal. It is not some kind of novel interpretation that he was neither a perfect king, nor a a perfect human. One interpretation is that the Books of Samuel, which depict him, incorporate materials from older, lost sources. One of them was a so-called "Republican source", with a clear anti-monarchial bias. See for example "monarchy"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE0MjLuYnYAhUBCZoKHbNWAwoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=david&f=false 1 and 2 Samuel by Robert P. Gordon, which notes that part of the text is accusing David for several of his actions, while other parts are trying to defend him from accusations that he had benefited from a series of violent deaths and other crimes. "monarchy"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE0MjLuYnYAhUBCZoKHbNWAwoQ6AEIMjAC#v=onepage&q=david&f=false Another source notes that in his encounter with Nabal, David is little more than an outlaw demanding protection money. His message is an act of intimidation, and a threat to confiscate Nabal's property. He asks for whatever Nabal has at hand, and reminds Nabal that he has not done any harm to his flocks ... yet. Dimadick ( talk) 12:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
|
How is it possible that this page doesn't have Michelangelo's David. That's very weird, and incomplete, as it's the most famous artwork about him. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:58DA:1F2B:3676:8AF1 ( talk) 10:18 pm, Today (UTC−5)
I have found that your edit summary is very vague.
[7]. The content you have restored They posit that Israel and Judah were still
polytheistic in the time of David and Solomon, and that much later seventh-century redactors sought to portray a past golden age of a united, monotheistic monarchy in order to serve contemporary needs
is nowhere in the source cited. I changed it citing that the former text was source misrepresentation. Either that or a case of
WP:FAKE.
JosephusOfJerusalem (
talk)
14:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Why the page is protected? if this site is the site of people, please explain what you do.
In response to the above: It is also exceedingly inappropriate to state as fact that the Book(s) of Samuel are a product of Josiah and subsequent "expansion" during Babylonian captivity. This is a deliberate and appalling creation of a narrative for a preconceived and dishonest objective. That position is one among many, and other positions reflect archeological discovery (vis. The Tel-Dan Stela). For my own part - I am a student of History and a Philosopher - to see one side of an argument presented as absolute fact is completely unacceptable, and represents an alarming ossification at best, but is clearly an unaccountable stab at propagandizing a contentious issue.
To claim that a text is a lie - and that IS the claim in dating Samuel (etc...) past their stated eras - is a claim that REQUIRES very conclusive substantiation. To make such a claim WITHOUT substantiation, and then DELIBERATELY OBSCURE AND PREVENT DIALOGUE is nothing shy of intellectual tyranny.
The authoritarian declaration inherent in this page is reprehensible. Locking the page is COMPLETELY at odds with everything that Wikipedia stands for - SO WHAT if it is contentious? That's the point!
Abject shame on you Wikipedia - this is exceedingly dishonest and in direct opposition to the entire purpose of the community.
You deliberately ignore anything but one camp? How dare you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.181.228 ( talk) 01:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This article states correctly that David is told that because he took Bathsheva from her husband and sent him to his death, his first child will die. The article is incorrect in stating that this child was Absalom. It was the first born of Bathsheva (unnamed in the text) as follows in 2Samuel 12:
15 Then Nathan went home. And the Lord caused the son of David and Bathsheba, Uriah’s widow, to be very sick. 16 David prayed to God for the baby. David fasted and went into his house and stayed there, lying on the ground all night. 17 The elders of David’s family came to him and tried to pull him up from the ground, but he refused to get up or to eat food with them.
18 On the seventh day the baby died.
This is directly in the text. Absalom's death came later. Absalom's mother was Maacah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naftalisz ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making this section a separate article, similar to Nephilim#Popular_culture. "Cultural depictions of David", probably. It is/can be well-sourced, but is given a lot of room here (though I've seen worse), especially in the ToC. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Some big citation issues here, in fact no citation is used at all in the opening section of the page. Many places you would hope to find a citation, there are none. Can we please work on fixing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.80.171 ( talk) 12:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's the note at the beginning of the introduction:
(/ˈdeɪvɪd/; Hebrew: דָּוִד, Modern: Davīd, Tiberian: Dāwīḏ; Ancient Greek: Δαυίδ, translit. Davíd; Latin: Davidus, David; Ge'ez: ዳዊት, Dawit; Old Armenian: Դաւիթ, Dawitʿ; Church Slavonic: Давíдъ, Davidŭ; possibly meaning "beloved one"[1])
Why is this relegated to a note? And why is it so long anyway? With the exception of English (because this is en:wp) and Hebrew (the original language), I don't see why any of these belong here, since they're just derivatives of the original. Maybe they'd fit in an article about the name, but one can have a full understanding of the biblical figure without knowing his name in ancient Greek, Ge'ez, or Old Armenian. Nyttend ( talk) 16:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"one can have a full understanding of the biblical figure without knowing his name in ancient Greek"
Wrong. Many of the texts written about him belong to the Septuagint and its derivatives. Dimadick ( talk) 17:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I want to second Nyttend's contention that ALL of these other than ancient Hebrew and modern English are pointless cruft as far as the intro goes. There may be places in the article body where they are relevant, there may be other articles where they are relevant, but in the intro here they are pointless. -- Khajidha ( talk) 16:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an interesting one. Sure, to a Jew or Christian it sounds strange, but if Muslims consider David to be Muslim, don't we have to show both in the infobox? See Prophets and messengers in Islam. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox monarch}}
doesn't really have parameters for this.
Jytdog (
talk)
15:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)@Awilley: First I’ve got to correct a few things. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint...not Mormons, not LDS or Latter-Day Saints. The term “Mormon” is a somewhat derogatory nickname given to our church because we believe that The Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ. We believe that Jospeh Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration but he is not the “latest prophet in the cycle of restorations and fallings away” as you described. (The term is Apostasy, by the way) there have been many prophets since Joseph Smith. The current (and 17th) prophet is Russell M. Nelson.
We do not consider King David a “Mormon.” He wasn’t even the prophet...(Samuel was the Prophet, Succeeded by Nathan). David was a King of the Old Testament and an Israelite. From the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob they were called Israelites or The Children if Israel.
There was a division of Israel at the time of Solomon (~925 B.C.) When the kingdom split between the 10 tribes of Israel in the northern kingdom and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the south. The northern kingdom retained the name of Israelites (despite a severe falling away from the Abrahamic Covenant and the Law of Moses). The Southern Kingdom became known as Judah, or the Jews.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not view David as a “Mormon” any more than Islam views Abraham as a Christian.
Abraham is considered the common patriarch of 3 different religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
Awilley, I think you’re missing the mark on this discussion: Should David have a note in an info box linking him to Islam?
Let’s review a couple facts here: 1) One of the definitions of what Wikipedia is (as provided by Wikipedia on their “About” page) is a “Collective memory – shared pool of information held in the memories of two or more members of a group”. Other definitions provided are “Database – organized collection of data” and “Reference work – compendium of information.”
2) The Torah and Old Testament, The New Testament, The Book of Mormon, the Quran, The Apocrypha are all considered factual and accurate documentations of history by their respective religions despite the fact that there is great controversy and debate by scientists, historians, atheists and archaeologists as to the validity of these sources. Even the article above addresses the fact that outside of the Bible there is virtually no proof to support that King David and the Kingdom of Israel ever existed. Does that mean we should relegate David to the subject of fantasy and fiction?
Regardless of whether you agree with a religion or common cultural point of view, the fact remains that that religion or POV is a cultural source of information that should be included in such an encyclopedic endeavor to gather so much information into one place such as Wikipedia. We’re looking for Information here, not truth, necessarily, but documentation that there is a group of people that believes a certain thing.
Should there be a note letting readers know that David is considered an Islamic prophet by Muslims? Yes. Is this a slippery slope that will open the door to unfounded subjective reasoning? Are you serious? DWHofmanm ( talk) 18:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
There is nowhere in the scripture that suggests David asked Bathsheba's permission or consent. He raped her. This was not an affair. Furthermore, the story that Nathan tells David to rebuke him specifically says the lamb was stolen, therefore, David stole Bathsheba and raped her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.63.42 ( talk) 00:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There are very plausible arguments to both David power-raping Bath-Sheba and to Bath-Sheba seducing the King in order to rise to become the most powerful woman in the known world at the time.
As it stands, there are currently no solid sources confirming either point of view as correct. We can’t know what really happened. DWHofmanm ( talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"A different version is told in 1 Samuel 27:1–4, in which Saul ceased to pursue David because David took refuge a second[30] time with Achish, the Philistine king of Gath." Doug Weller, others, we should probably have a source stating that this a different version, it may not be obvious to many readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This Statue by Michelangelo is a much better statue than the one made by Nicolas Cordier, so wouldn't it be better to use the Michalangelo statue as the image for the infobox?( Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite ( talk) 01:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)).
Discussion about to what extent "Biblical account" sections (and similar) needs secondary sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
There's been some back and forth editing on if David is the second or third king. Anyone want to talk about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The first is Saul, the second is Ish-bosheth. David usurps the throne after the assassination of Ish-bosheth. What more is there to discuss? Dimadick ( talk) 22:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
According to the Hebrew Bible, Ishboshet was never the "king of the Unified Kingdoms of Israel and Judah". David was acclaimed king of Judah, after that Ishboshet was declared king of Israel, then he was killed and David became king of the Unified Kingdom. David is the second king according to the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Encyclopedia, [ Britannica], etc. Sources added to the article. 2A01:CB09:B04B:815F:50D5:9E4:977B:2260 ( talk) 18:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Dimadick, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Sir Joseph: Looking at the sources that the IP added in the infobox to support the ideal that David was the second king of Israel is highly questionable. Starting with the oldest source, the Jewish Encyclopedia is dated to 1901-1906 and is therefore outdated, and the Britannica source is an overview of David's life according to J. Coert Rylaarsdam. It does not provide any scholarly thoughts on the matter or any other thoughts on scholarly disputes. The beginning even states that David flourished 1000 BC, but the site does not provide any evidence to support that date. The rest of the article is based on the primary source via the Bible, but the author of the page didn't even have the decency to provide Biblical chapters and verses to confirm any of the content, pure laziness. The Bible has different scenarios as to how David became king. Looking at the Biblical chapters/verses, David did not become king of Israel after Saul's death. He was anointed king only by the tribe of Judah. He ruled Judah in Hebron. His reign of Judah was seven years and six months before becoming king of Israel, and it shouldn't be difficult to figure out who ruled everything else while David was king of Judah. Primary source: 2 Samuel Ch. 2:2 - 11. Jerm ( talk) 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång I've restored Ish-bosheth back as predecessor, and added academic sources for support. Jerm ( talk) 03:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It is like debating how many angels can fit of the top of a needle. It seems highly likely that a Davidic-Solomonic United Monarchy never existed, so it is much ado for nothing. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)