Krellin, why did you do that?

Why do I do what, tendmote?

Octavious, probably. My point is that 99% of people who call themselves Christians agree on the main books of the Bible, which was established 1600-1700 years ago, in the first few centuries A.D. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.[10]

"In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon,[11] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[12] The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[13] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[14][15] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[16] or, if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[17] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[18] In c. 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. Christian scholars assert that, when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[19][20][21]

Thus, some claim that, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon,[22] and that, by the 5th century, the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.[3][23] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

Oops, that quote was supposed to start before the word "Thus."

OK, so...this...went to an odd place...

As things are apt to do when krellin and Putin mix...but to get back on track:

@Octavious:

"The trouble I have with many of them is they tend to have a big focus on issues between whites and blacks which, living in a country where there is a 2% black population, doesn't really speak to me. I can see how to an American it's a big deal and all, but to me its all very tedious."

Hm, interesting point...and wow, only 2% of British citizens are black? I'd have thought it'd be more than that, what with immigration from previous colonies and such, and an increased amount of Muslim immigrants...unless by black we mean strictly those of African descent? (Which is technically all of us at some point, but anyway.)

@krellin:

"Yes, Obi, the "religious" attach value to exodus. And you are somehow making the assinine assumption that every human is religious and Christian? Uhhhh....NOT. And, as I have stated before, the sad majority of Chrisitans I meet haven't actually *read* the Bible....instead they sit in Sunday school and have pablum stories told to them."

1. Um...no, that's NOT my assumption, as you damn well know since you quoted the REST of my passage dealing with atheists and those of other views afterwards, so...thanks for taking my comment not only to the ridiculous extreme, but out of context as well? Always a sign of good reading.

2. I'm not disagreeing that the majority of religious folks probably haven't read Exodus for themselves--I simply said it had value to them, WHAT KIND of value is open to interpretation there. Obviously MLK read his Bible, but let's suppose he didn't, but still knew the basic plot of the Out-of-Egypt story in Exodus, as most people do (and by basic, I mean REALLY basic--Israelites/Jews enslaved in Egypt, Burning Bush, Moses says "Let my people go," Pharaoh says "Go pound sand," Plagues and then parting the Red Sea and then boom the underdog Israelite/Jews make it out to "freedom," just the absolute basic-basics) and he still used it as a recurring theme in his sermons, including the famous "Mountaintop" speech he have shortly before his death.

We could all agree that, even just knowing OF Exodus would have provided this alternate MLK some value, yes? Would have given him fodder for his speeches and inspired his people?

There are a LOT of different ways a text can be valuable...and sometimes, just knowing OF a text can be valuable. What's more, you may benefit from a text inadvertently--

Even if people haven't read a word of Shakespeare, they have--the man invented hundreds of words and phrases that we use every day, so whether they know it or not, there's still value in those texts for giving them the words they use every day.

"Now you are just getting stupid. So, to you, by your example, if I stick 100 monkeys in a room and each have them pound out a page and I bind them together and call it literature, it has value, and is therefore great literature. "Why do you say this, krellin? That seems absurd!" you say.

"Simple, my good friend Obi, because I called it literature, and I will now debate its merit with whomever I can find..."

THAT is the standard of good literature you have now defined by saying Exodus has value because the atheists think it's stupid."

...No...my point was a religious text can be of use to atheists in exposing the flaws of theism--not simply that you declare whatever you wish literature by fiat and then simultaneously declare it to be stupid.

And like it or not--the definition of "literature," unless we look to narrow it for our own purposes, is pretty broad...I'd argue your example doesn't work because your monkeys don't know what the letters mean and therefore aren't really "writing," they're pressing buttons randomly rather than trying to tell a story or write a poem or communicate via text in any way we'd normally consider permissibly.

THAT BEING SAID, there are those who WOULD call that literature.

I think they're complete moron, but to really clarify why we'd again need to come up with a working definition of "literature" that excludes some things...including, presumably, things that are written by beings who don't even know what they're typing or saying and therefore are at most pushing buttons for their own reasons or else are simply pushing buttons at random, and we'd then have to say that randomness isn't consistent with literature and say why--presumably because we imply a certain level of authorial intent when it comes to writing--and so on.

But presuming that Exodus is a text written by at least semi-coherent men and not by monkeys--there's a joke in there somewhere, but I'm just gonna leave that alone--we can therefore probably all agree that, in the loosest meaning of the word, it's "literature."

I don't think I need to explain why Exodus would have historical value (by which I mean that it's affected our political and artistic history, NOT that it's actually historically accurate) and I think I can assume that MOST theists and atheists would agree to this.

An atheist can admit that Exodus has had a profound impact on everything from painting to Cecil B. Demille films to MLK's speeches and so on.

If you want to argue that atheists using Exodus as a referential text on why religion is born of low means and what it's problems are doesn't work as an argument, how about the historical/artistic argument? AGAIN, there is value in a text even if you don't yourself READ that text, because if it's powerful and/or pervasive enough, it's going to impact the world and popular culture around you...and there's value in THAT.

"OK...people that don't place a lot of value in Exodus other than it's value as a fairy tale they may or may not know of: Atheists, HIndus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Christians that don't read their Bible (i.e. most), Muslims...shall I go on?"

1. Muslims take Moses as a prophet, so pretty sure they'd care about the basic Exodus story, whatever form it may take in their Koran, so, that's an example refuted...

2. I've already said why Christians that don't read their Bible and Atheists would place value in Exodus, unless you're going to argue that the historical/artistic point fails (which knowing you, you probably are, but I'll wait to hear why you think that with bated breath...)

3. Hindus and Buddhists I'll give you, but in fairness, I AM mainly talking about the WESTERN literary/historic/artistic tradition here, krellin, so I'm not sure that's an entirely fair way to critique Exodus or any Western text...the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita are HUGE Eastern texts that many in the West have not only probably never read, but chances are have never even heard of and, if they did, might think were just strange and discount them because, well, the Eastern and Western traditions are just that different. That doesn't mean every Westerner has discounted them (maybe most famously T.S. Eliot alludes to those Eastern works, and of course the Beatles have their own connections to India and George Harrison especially got into that) but I don't think it's fair to use Exodus' lack of value to Buddhists and Hindus as a point of criticism because really that's an East/West thing...Homer and Shakespeare and all that may not matter to them, but I don't think many would hold that against the authors or claim that as a reason to say they lack value, it's just that the Eastern and Western traditions and cultural ideals are so different it's hard to get Homer, the Bible, Shakespeare and other such Western inventions to "work" in the Eastern tradition, and vice versa.

4. ...I honestly don't know all that much about Wiccans...I used to have a friend whose mother was Wiccan, but aside from that, yeah, I don't know, so I guess I can't say. That being said, A. I don't think they're that big a part of the population, so it's not a huge counterexample the way Buddhists/Hindus might have been, and B. Since they still LIVE in the West (at least mainly) I'll venture to say that at least most of them have heard of Exodus/Shakespeare, and if they live in the English-speaking world, they use Shakespeare's words and have probably heard of MLK, so if they value the Civil Rights Movement, they may value his influences, one of which would be Exodus. A stretch, but that's the best I have, as yeah, they probably don't care, I grant you.

"The Bible, as literature, is a rather dull, drab work. It is disconnected, often time confusing and even seemingly contradictory ( to the un-studied, the studied would say). It's prose is choppy, it's poetry is mediocre...as literature goes, please do not attempt to duplicate if you wish a career as an author."

Well, only a fool or prophet would ever try and write down the Bible...

I leave it to the folks here to decide which of these options is more likely for the original.

;)

But I'm going to (partially) disagree with you on the Bible being bad literature. Kind of.

There are a lot, a LOT, A LOT of stories in the Bible that are bad. I completely agree.

If I were to (hehe) play Devil's Advocate for the Bible, however, I'd say:

1. Discounting the idea that this is a perfectly-ordered and ordained list by God (and I don't think I need to say why I'm throwing out that option) the Bible is basically an anthology--but worse, it's an anthology put together by people who are compiling these stories LONG after the original authors died off. As such, yeah, the Bible's a choppy, plodding mess...but I can't entirely fault the authors since they weren't the ones who decided the order--I fault the editors, as it were. that doesn't change that fact that it IS a choppy, plodding mess, except

2. I think the Bible works better when you "take it apart" and pick and choose stories rather than take it as a single Canon. (Again, this DOES NOT work if you're viewing the work theologically, but ONLY if you're reading it as fiction.) I think there are certain parts certain Books of the Bible--I'll cite Exodus, Job, and the Psalms as three examples--that are at the very least "passable" for various reasons

The Out of Egypt/Moses story is very, very, VERY rough around the edges and filled with plot problems, but that's the case with a lot of old oral legends/epics...Beowulf has some odd hiccups in logic too, but we still treat it as a great epic and one of the major starting points of English literature. That being said, after they get out of Egypt, Exodus gets pretty bad pretty fast...but for all I know, the original author/oral performer told a cool made-up story about the Jews getting out of Egypt with flashy miracles and all that, and decades later it got fused with rabbinic dogma and became what it is today. There's the SEED of a good story in Exodus, at least, and the seed of one of the most influential stories of all-time at that, the sort of people-rising-up-as-underdogs story, and so that, at least, gives the book some value, I think, as a work of literature--it's at the very least salvageable in a way that, say, Deuteronomy or (to take a story) 1 Samuel isn't.

Then you have Job, which is honestly in my opinion the weirdest book of the entire Old Testament, just because it's so different from everything else in there...Lucifer just strolls up to God as if they're at the water cooler--"Hey God, old buddy, old pal," "Why hello there, asshole, wanna make a bet and totally screw up a guy's life as well as kill his kids?" "You know it!" ;) It's so different from the rest of the Judeo-Christian works in the Bible I'm half-tempted to say it had to have been written before the Jewish tradition was "set," at a time when there were a lot of different and conflicting ideas about God and people were still talking about and debating about God and theology in a more philosophical way rather than "Here is the book, The One Book to Rule Them All, the book is always right, shut up." So I appreciate the book and author for at least trying to be different and, to its credit, at least trying to answer what's arguably the oldest argument against God's existence as a divine entity--"If God exists and God is good, why do bad things happen to good people?" And Job and his asshole friends talk it out...kind of. It's the closest you get to a Socratic Dialogue in the Old Testament, and that combined with the way that God and Lucifer act a lot more like the Greek gods would--ie, making bets, just strolling on up to each other, etc.--makes me wonder if this was written around the period where Jews were living in close proximity to the Hellenized world, and maybe a Jewish author tried to combine the two traditions as best he could and take Jewish theology and Greek philosophy and their conception of how gods interact and throw it into a blender. The answers that are still given to Job are still crap (and so over the top I wish I could say this was the job of a covert atheist, because Job does a really good job as a text of showing off what a huge dick atheists claim God to be...and before you challenge that, Mujus, God makes Job sick and kills his kids and then doesn't even bring them back, he gives him "new" kids at the end, so, yeah, God killed innocent kids to prove a point and win a bet with Lucifer...he's a dick) but I appreciate the book for at least trying, and I get the impression this comes from a writer who was genuinely trying to square the circle in more ways than one and combine both the Greek and Jewish traditions as well as try and find some explanation for the cruelty of the world...it's one of the only times in the Bible you see a book step back and try and actually answer some criticisms the reader might be having--and if the work was written alone (as it almost certainly was, given the huge difference in its style from most anything else in the Old Testament) then that means someone somewhere saw the need all the way 2,000+ years ago to try and answer some criticisms against God and at the very least they seem to have at least tried. They fail...and their answer basically boils down to "Because he's God, you shouldn't doubt or curse Him even when you seemingly have every right to do so," so the ending is easily the worst part of the story, sadly, but AT LEAST I can give them credit for doing what seemingly no one else was either brave enough or insightful enough to do and at least take time out to address the fact that maybe, just maybe, there was a genuine philosophical objection to God via the Problem of Evil, and that maybe they ought to try and address that point. I'd like to think it took at least some courage to write a book where the idea of God as less than perfect or on par with Lucifer is even entertained, albeit briefly, so I give it credit there.

And then we have the Psalms, and there are so many that chances are you're bound to find at least a few you like, even if you dislike the rest. It's poetry and for once it seems to clearly be MEANT as figurative poetry, so it's OK to be interpretive...I don't have to get hung up on the fact God's being a dick because, for once, we're focusing on the figurative language. Sure, they're meant to praise God, and it gets to the point where it almost starts to sound just a bit creepy in terms of how psychologically-dependent the authors (I'll assume it wasn't "the historical David" who wrote these, and by "historical David" I mean whatever figure gave rise to that legend, since it seems, much like King Arthur, there's some evidence to suggest there WAS a fairly prosperous kingdom in Judea at one point, and there's been a lot of scholarship on that, so chances are there probably was an actual figure who inspired the David myth, the same way there very well might have been an actual leader in Britain who fought the Anglo-Saxons and won briefly which may have inspired King Arthur) are on God. I mean, they really, really, REALLY seem to love and need God, don't they? ;) If you wrote that kind of poetry to a girl, and said you loved her and needed her THAT much, if that girl had any brains she'd slowly back away from you, un-friend you on Social Media and maybe get a restraining order out. xD But since they're just poems and NOT meant to be taken as theological fact, I can take them in the context of their period and say that, in the same way we see some conventions of love in Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare and so on that would not fly today, we take these claims of love for what they are and in the context of the time they were written. For those who ask "Why don't you allow that for OTHER Biblical texts when you criticize them, Obi, in the way you repeatedly bash 1 Samuel?" I say, again, the saving grace of the Psalms is that they are DESIGNED as works of fiction. Since that's the case, I CAN cut them some slack, since they're not arguing "this is how God defied science and logic and create the Earth in 6 days," or "And this is why killing all the Amalekite men, women, and children was totally 100% the moral thing to do." Most of the rest of the Bible is made up of things I'm (presumably) supposed to take as either fact or dogma, either "this really happened, no matter what science/archaeology says" or "this is moral, no matter how disgustingly-awful it seems." The Psalms, by contrast, are just poems--I can cut fictional poems some slack because they're not claiming to be universal truths while simultaneously urinating on moral, logical and scientific objections to the contrary. There's some decent examples of poetry's humble beginnings in the Psalms, so for me, at least, they're worth a pass on those grounds.

And as one final addendum, to answer the (fair) question, "What about the New Testament, Obi, all three of your examples come from the Old Testament?" I say...

Eh? I didn't grow up with the New Testament, of course, being a Jew, and so while of course I knew the Jesus story, I didn't read the Gospels or Revelations or the Letters or Corinthians or any of that until college. And...well, really, I don't feel qualified to say whether or not those are good stories or not yet. I can tell you that of the Gospels I hate John the most (and you can probably guess why, the damn anti-Semite) and I have a soft spot for a part of Luke just because I heard Linus give a speech from it every time I saw "A Charlie Brown Christmas" growing up (so that'st the one passage from the New Testament I can quote, lol, and all because of Linus saying "Sure, Charlie Brown, I can tell you what Christmas is all about") but yeah...I'm not qualified to argue whether it's good or bad or salvageable literature.

Is it valuable? ...If you live in the West, I have to say yes, because, well, we're founded on the four cornerstones of Greek, Roman, Jewish and Christian thought and ideology, and the Jesus story's one of the biggest tenants of that. Chances are you already know the Jesus myth. Chances are you've seen movies or read books inspired by or influenced by that myth.

Aaaaaaaand that's about as much as I care to try and play Devil's Advocate for the Bible as Literature. :p Thank you for joining me on another edition of Obi's TL;DR Show, and I'll see you next time (if you're foolish enough to tune in.) :p

I actually almost feel bad about that, Obi...but...nahhhhh....I don't. What I wrote...it was good literature, I think. It sparks debate, it provokes people to action - to resond, to be repelled, whatever - it causes people to question human relationships in the strange ether of the internet...yes, indeed I produce great literature, wouldn't you say?

^^ In the same way that Africa produces good AIDS.

OK YJ - I'll take you up on that. In the US, we have AIDS. By common (mis)understanding, AIDS in the US is a "homosexual" disease. Oh sure, the intellectually honest will admit that it can be passed through blood transfusion, hetero sex, etc...but it's really always been seen as more of a gay disease. Couple that with the relative success of treatment, and many in the US probably would consider AIDS to be a non-issue...something not worthy of funding, research, etc...

....enter Africa, where AIDS runs rampant, where it is unselective, where children are born and die of a disease that is unchecked, unrelenting.

African AIDS is the AIDS that makes AIDS an issue in the US for those compassionate enough to look beyond themselves, and can see this horrible disease for what it truly is: an epidemic that is alive and well. Without African AIDS, I submit that there would be far less research....not that there is a great deal now, but there would be even less.

So yes...in its own horrible way, African AIDS is good, if your objective is to have the disease finally conquered.

You'll assume it wasn't the historical David. Your theology is based on assumptions, which is not the best way to learn the real truth, which is to have an open mind and use logic rather than depending on assumptions. So... what are your underlying assumptions based on?? And that, my friend, will be the answer to your question.

"So... what are your underlying assumptions based on??"

As one--ONE, not the only one--example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN9zeDjlK8o

I'll give another:

For it to be David who wrote the Psalms he'd have to, well, exist.

And as I stated above, while I think there was probably an antecedent to the David figure of myth, I don't find the idea that the man actually existed as purported in the Bible very likely.

"David" is probably a lot closer to King Arthur or Robin Hood than he is to George Washington or Queen Elizabeth--

The latter of course are 100% verified historical figures, the others are figures which may have existed and probably had some prototype or prototypes that actually did exist, get conflated in tales over time, and in a centuries-long game of telephone became the mythic figures we know today.

So, since I don't think there was an actual "King David" (at least as the Bible describes him) any more than I think there was a real King Arthur (though in both cases there were probably real-life figures that inspired those real-life figures) it would therefore seem to follow that I can't believe that a real Psalm came from a fictional David, ergo, I don't believe the David of the Bible wrote the Psalms.

Why don't I think the Bible's account of David is factual?

1. As a rule I tend to say believe the Bible is more myth than fact, and you and I both know the reason why (rather hard for me to believe otherwise when the first verse--"In the Beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth"--is an assertion I reject)

2. As such, getting your history from the Bible is a bad, bad idea, so I don't think it's wise to ascribe the historical Psalms to a figure who can't be said to have actually existed.

3. At this point the theist might well say "Well, what about Socrates? We can't 100% verify he existed," but to that end you'll notice I don't ascribe any "works" to Socrates, since nothing he wrote--if he existed and if he wrote--exist to this day...that being said, there are enough and (another key point here) enough VARIED second-hand sources and people writing who said he existed that I'm willing to therefore say sure, since I'm not ascribing any text to him, it's OK to take that leap and give him the benefit of the doubt and say he existed, if I'm wrong, after all, what do I lose? It's not as if I'm assuming David's a poet-king who wrote all these Psalms we have, I'm just assuming someone existed based on varied second-hand accounts. By contrast, we get David in the Bible--not varied enough for me. By contrast, we get different sources and writers writing about Socrates, so I think the claim there is stronger.

4. "But still" our smart theist says, "what about, say, Homer? Not only do you ascribe HIM both existence and works, but the works you ascribe him are arguably the only ancient texts that rival the Old and New Testaments in literary significance from the ancient world, the Iliad and Odyssey. Those aren't just major works, they're works which are of far greater literary significance than the Psalms AND would crack about any Top 10 World Literature list in terms of importance...so why give Homer the benefit of the doubt, but not David?" Here I have multiple answers. First, unlike the Biblical David (and like the assumed Socrates) there's nothing to really "disprove" Homer's existence. There is a lack of definitive evidence for Homer and Socrates existing, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that we've assumed they did and can't prove it. BY CONTRAST, there IS archaeological evidence that questions the validity of the time frame and existence of the Biblical David. As such, where I can give Socrates and Homer the benefit of the doubt, I can't do the same for David (interesting as that might be) as to do so would contradict the evidence we have. HOWEVER,

5. If I were to be generous to the smart theist (and not so generous to Homer) I'd say that, since scholarship has pretty much come to a consensus that the Iliad and Odyssey were polished up when they were eventually written down, and that it's pretty unlikely Homer himself ever sat down and wrote out the work bearing his name (after all, not only were things still largely int the oral tradition at the time he's supposed to have existed, but he was supposed to be blind, right? Pretty hard to write blind even today, and it's a safe bet Homer didn't have the advantages of braille...if we were in the most generous of moods we could always say he dictated it to a partner, but that supposition raises so many logical problems and is seemingly silly on the surface of it, so we can likely discard it) we CAN say that the Iliad and Odyssey were not actually "written" by Homer in their current form. We can maybe say he was the original storyteller/the most famed and best storyteller for those epics, or that his reinvention of previous stories proved so popular people decided to write them down and THAT is where we get the Iliad and the Odyssey, so in a roundabout way Homer's the "creator" of the epics as we know them if not their literal "author," but even that, of course, has problems.

6. Why, then, give Homer credit for the epics (in some form) but not David for the Psalms? The answer is two-fold--I don't have a better explanation or identity as to who "wrote" or first "created" those epics, so just calling the author "Homer" seems OK, you're not slighting anyone. By contrast, if you were to argue Marlowe, Bacon, or the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays, you're discrediting the man Shakespeare, and without getting into THAT long authorship debate, it's enough to say that there's nothing even close to a clincher that either Shakespeare DIDN'T write his plays or that someone else DID, the whole thing is circumstantial, so in the absence of a smoking gun--or quill, as it were--I'm fine giving the credit to the Bard from Avon, since to do otherwise on just circumstantial evidence, and flimsy excuses for "evidence" at that, seems rather unfair. However, with respect to Homer AND Shakespeare, we COULD make the argument that the man doesn't matter..."Homer" is dead and gone and dust, and so is "Shakespeare," whoever they may have been. Therefore, the "men on the page," as it were, are "Homer" and "Shakespeare" in the sense that, well, we need name for these authors (especially Shakespeare--bad Roland Emmerich movies aside, you can't really say "Hamlet, written by Anonymous," not when we have a clear list of people who could have written the plays and both tradition and most of the evidence either points to Shakespeare or at the very least doesn't undercut him, so tradition wins out, we're kind of used to the name by now, and the same goes for Homer.)

7. In THAT sense, Mujus, if you wanted to argue a "David" rather than David (if those quotes make sense to you, what I'm distinguishing between, ie, an assumed identity of authorship and an ACTUAL identity of authorship) then maybe you could try that, though that has one additional problem--the facts against David's very existence again. We know for a fact Shakespeare existed (hell, we have a semi-accurate birthday for him as April 23rd, 1564...1564 is true, as is April, and the date is derived from his baptism and when he was therefore most likely born in relation to that, but April 1564 is already loads better than we can do for David or, to be fair, Homer or Socrates...so we know when he was born, when he died, 1616, we have 6 samples of his signature--all different, of course--we have business transactions, a will, we know he was an actor, etc., the only obstacle we have is the playwright part/did he write his plays and, again, without making this part even longer, we have enough evidence for that to match or surpass the evidence presented by contending theories, so we tend to give the tie to Will and slap his name on the plays.) We don't know for a fact of Socrates existed, but we have nothing that really disputes his existence, and we have a good amount of second-hand accounts on top of that, so we can give him the benefit of the doubt too, in my opinion. We don't know about Homer and don't really have much in the way of cold hard facts, but again, since there's nothing disproving his existence, we can be charitable and at least grant the old man existence, and then be scholarly and say that if he did first sing the forms of the Iliad and Odyssey as we know them, chances are he wasn't the actual author who wrote them down...but since we don't know THEIR names either, may as well give Homer the credit.

8. So what about David? David's Kingdom is called into serious question--a Jewish kingdom did exist, but the size, nature, prosperity and power of that nation are all still hotly debated today, let alone who the "actual" kings were. Why can't we just give David the benefit of the doubt, then, like the above authors? Simply put, because nothing in the Iliad or Odyssey clashes with the idea of Homer existing when it was first being sung, and nothing clashes with the idea that Socrates around during the period we assume him to have lived during, and certainly nothing clashes with Shakespeare existing during the period his plays were written, since we know their dates of performance and they coincide with Shakespeare's life and time in London as part of his theatre company (a fact that's NOT shared by candidates like Edward de Vere, ie, the Earl of Oxford, who died in 1604 despite several of "Shakespeare's" works being written AFTER that, which is while you'll see arguments for a different chronological ordering of the plays from Oxfordians which conflicts with history and piles up the anachronisms BUT, again, I'll leave that for another time.) The de Vere case does hit at one of the core issues with calling David the author, however--the timeline. Archaeology is against the timeline that would be necessary for the David of the Bible to be the author of the Psalms in much the same way historical events referenced or which came to inspire later Shakespeare plays pose an issue for calling de Vere the author. The timeline for the Bible's David doesn't work, and that's granting the David of the Bible having existed AT ALL, which again, there are problems with...chances are he's an amalgamation of a couple figures from the history of that Jewish kingdom in Judea. Which part of Judea is yet another problem--one thing the Bible may actually be correct on (in the loosest sense) is the idea that there was a split in an initial Jewish kingdom leading to Norther and Southern kingdoms. Since historians have seen aspects of other, verified kings in the David character, and these aspects come from both Northern AND Southern kings. One theory is that "David" was either invented as a figure to remind the two kingdoms of a shared heritage/leader; another is that a "David" may have indeed existed further back and this is who they're alluding to but, again, in King Arthur fashion, he's exaggerated (which would fit with the idea of his writing the Psalms and being a poet king, in much the same way any historical predecessor for King Arthur was in no way a paragon of chivalry and later Medieval ideals, but writers have exaggerated his goodness and injected these Medieval ideals because it made for good storytelling as well as for a rousing national legend); a third theory has it that the basis for "David" was a Northern or Southern king that was renamed for one reason or another over time, and THAT led to the David legend over time. As such, BECAUSE we cannot verify his existence in ANY form (be it as an actual person, a person who was renamed, a legendary figure based on one or more actual people, a total creation, etc.) AND the archaeology is against the legend of David existing when the Bible says he did--never mind ruling where and how much the Bible alludes to him ruling--it isn't just an absence of evidence but evidence AGAINST David which hurt his candidacy for authorship.

To put it one way--Shakespeare has some uncertainty, but definite points towards his authorship; you can argue him being the author (and probably be wrong) but you can't deny he has a definite case. So Shakespeare comes out a fairly-strong Positive.

Socrates has a lot of uncertainty, but nothing flatly contradicting his existence and some varied accounts of his existing, so he comes out weakly Positive--we could definitely argue maybe he didn't exist, but there doesn't seem to be a pressing reason to do so, and at least he has something to back up his claim of existence.

Homer has as much uncertainty as its possible to have, really, and we cannot verify it was him at all...but we also can't disprove Homer's existence either, so he comes out about Neutral--you can (and if you go deep into Homeric studies probably will) end up talking about the centuries it took to fashion the Iliad and Odyssey, but we can go ahead and say Homer was a poet who sang and maybe sang the versions we knew or something like that, there's no harm in the claim, even if you can't back it up with much evidence.

David has no evidence for him writing the Psalms besides the Bible and tradition, which starts him on the same level as Homer, Neutral. HOWEVER, he has marks against since while nothing archaeological or historical really flies in the face of the claim a blind Greek poet in the 8th century B.C. sang two of the greatest poems ever, there IS archaeological evidence against David's existing/existing when the Bible needs him to/existing as the Bible claims him to, etc. So David goes from Neutral into the Negatives, which leads me to doubt his authorship.

And thus ends my short response to that. :p

Obiwan,

What do you think of the recent inscription found with "House of David" written on it?

Link? I don't know of the inscription, so I can't attest to it.''

I will say that while it'd be better than no evidence (or just the Bible as evidence) it still would be far from a smoking gun for me...

After all, artists like Spenser dedicated their works to royalty of the time...it's not unreasonable to think that 2,000 years later we might find what was once the equivalent of a "Dedicated to" and mistake it for a "Written by."

Of course, "Dedicated to" would be better than nothing at all...just because something says its of the House of David doesn't mean that that was actually THE House of THE David, but, depending on the inscription, I can see where that might strengthen the case in at least some angle for David at least having existed.

Obi, you know I just skim your longer posts, right??
Well you are quite open about that fact that you have an anti-Bible bias. However, your support--references to other historical figures and logic-- isn't strong enough to justify your negative reaction to Bible truths. For example, you say, "By contrast, we get David in the Bible--not varied enough for me. By contrast, we get different sources and writers writing about Socrates, so I think the claim there is stronger." Of course you know that the Bible is a collection of dozens of different documents written by many different men over a very long period of time, but you may not know that with the possible exception of the first five books, they didn't think that they were writing "The Bible"--They were writing historical accounts, poetic books, prophecies, first-hand accounts, and later instructional letters to specific churches. So... how can you say with any intellectual integrity that Socrates was referenced by many sources while David was not? The Bible is a collection of many sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/06/world/from-israeli-site-news-of-house-of-david.html

David appears 998 times, in Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, First and Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Zachariah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Second Timothy, Hebrews, and Revelation. These books were written over a period of over 600 years.

Obiwan, going to answer my question?

"Dr. Biran said the stele was inscribed with 13 truncated lines of Aramaic text referring to the "House of David." From the style of the script and its references to a "king of Israel" and a king of the House of David, the archeologist surmised that this probably was a victory stele erected in the first quarter of the ninth century B.C. by the king of Damascus after he "smote Ijon, and Dan, and Abel-beth-maachah," in the words from I Kings 15:20.

In that case, according to Dr. Biran's interpretation, the "king of Israel" of the inscription may be identified with Baasha and the king of the "House of David" with Asa, a descendant of David who ruled as king of Judah."

It sounds as if that's more evidence for this Baasha existing during a certain period (since Wikipedia cites different authorities giving different times for his reign) than for David himself.

After all, it could well be that, as I floated above, "David" could have been a construct, and so "House of David" might have been something closer to "Democrat" in meaning (ie, showing political allegiance via a symbol that doesn't actual exist, a donkey/a mythic king, David") or, to go back to the world of Shakespeare...

To be of "the House of York" wouldn't have meant you were descended from some actual guy named Billy York or so, just that the House of York was a branch of the larger House of Plantagenet, which goes back even further and so on.

I'll say it IS better than no evidence, so in that sense, yes, it helps the case for David existing, though like I said, the House of York example means that I'm still skeptical, since of course naming your House/party "The House of David" doesn't mean you were actually descended from THE David (let alone that that David was the author of the Psalms, which was the original point of inquiry here.) After all, if I were trying to gain legitimacy in a world where bloodlines mattered so much, OF COURSE I'd claim kinship with someone who seems to have at least been a very powerful legendary figure even by that time...

The Republicans still call themselves "the Party of Lincoln," Putin...

And surely we can both agree that 1. They're not descended from Lincoln and 2. Lincoln would probably be pretty appalled by the state of US politics today?

Of course, Lincoln DID exist, but I'm mainly using that example to show how a house claiming to be of the Davidic line doesn't convince me of that. It gives a little more evidence for David maybe existing, but still nothing as conclusive as I'd like, especially considering my House of York example.

So I guess it comes down to whether or not you're willing to take a leap of faith--

In my case, I'd rather be skeptical and see David as a mythic, King Arthur-like figure who was probably inspired by one or more persons until I see something more conclusive for his existence.

And, again, ALL of this is just backdrop to the question of providing any reason to believe he wrote the Psalms, which was the original point.

The House of York descended from Edward III. They were called the House of York because the founder and his descendants was the Duke of York. So, in order for this to be comparable to the House of David, "David" would have to be a place name. So where exactly is the city or county of David?

The Party of Lincoln is not comparable. We're not talking about political parties here, we're talking about royal houses. For royal houses, descent is all-important. Even in your York case, the house still all descended from the same line.

IMO, we should accept the historical data wherever it goes. If the data says David existed then David existed.

What a load of pseudo-intellectual bullshit you lot go on with. Holy fuck.

"The House of York descended from Edward III. They were called the House of York because the founder and his descendants was the Duke of York. So, in order for this to be comparable to the House of David, "David" would have to be a place name. So where exactly is the city or county of David?"

1. I know why it was called the House of York, my point is that "House of __" doesn't necessarily mean descent from someone of that name, that's all I meant (and Duke of York =/= someone of that name as Duke of York would be a title rather than a name.)

2. Well, that's the question, now, isn't it? And that's my point--we can't even pinpoint on a map where David's supposed city or country would have been if he existed...we have the famous "City of David" reference in the Gospel of Luke, which we all know from hearing Linus tell us Jesus was born there every "Charlie Brown Christmas," but that's a far later reference and problematic as it is, so I'm not at all prepared to call THAT supposed location the actual City of David/Capital of a Davidic Empire.

3. "The Party of Lincoln is not comparable. We're not talking about political parties here, we're talking about royal houses." I'd argue that, while practically different, of course, there's at least some semblance of similarity, if not literally than figuratively? In any case, my only point there was to show that, obviously, Jeb Bush today is NOT a descendant of Lincoln...but if 2,000 years from now all people had were fragments of our civilization (and the Complete Works of Shakespeare, of course) and they were trying to piece together "Ancient American History" and saw repeated references to a "Party of Lincoln" they COULD mistake that to mean something based on descent...all I'm saying is 2,000 years worth of time can have a big corrupting influence on our understanding of the past. We have a reading of "House of David" that we're used to and (in many cases) want to be factual and true...but that doesn't mean that it is true, and it's entirely possible that we're missing vital facts about the period and are misinterpreting what's meant by "House of David." That's all I'm saying, just airing on the side of skepticism.

4. "For royal houses, descent is all-important. Even in your York case, the house still all descended from the same line." I'll ask the question then--how are you going to prove it? Suppose someone said "Oh, yes, our family is descended from the David, that's why WE are the House of David." Suppose we had a non-Biblical record attesting to that. How are we to prove that lineage? Can't do DNA testing, and we can't even be sure of the authenticity or motives of such claims (after all, again, if it's ancient times and saying you're descended from a popular legendary figure will give your cause credibility, it'd make sense to lie and say you were descended from him, yes? It's not as if they can catch you with a DNA test, and it's the ancient equivalent of a propaganda move.) When we can't even verify the authorship (which was again the initial point of this discussion, as even if I for some reason am persuaded David existed, you still have to persuade me he wrote all those Psalms) how can we verify the truth of the claim?

5. "IMO, we should accept the historical data wherever it goes. If the data says David existed then David existed." The data doesn't say he exists, the data is extremely circumstantial, murky, and in no way intellectually or otherwise is it conclusive. It's complete supposition to say David existed--again, I put him on par with King Arthur, in that a David-like figure or two probably did exist, but as far as THE David, or THE Arthur...probably not, and I'd need far more evidence than the scraps presented to persuade me otherwise.

You're asking for unreasonable levels of evidence for ancient historical personages. Based on the standards for other ancient historical personages, having an inscription from a stele that says House of David is good evidence.

"I know why it was called the House of York, my point is that "House of __" doesn't necessarily mean descent from someone of that name, that's all I meant"

But we have no reason to believe David is a place-name, and that's the only instance we see of a House having a name other than a name derived from the founder of the dynasty.

"Well, that's the question, now, isn't it?"

No not really. The question was if David refers to something other than the founder of the dynasty, what is it?

"saw repeated references to a "Party of Lincoln" they COULD mistake that to mean something based on descent"

Royal houses have existed for millenia. People know what they entail. Nobody is going to confuse a political party with something based on descent. We're not reading anything into it. Kingship based on hereditary descent is the most ancient form of government known to man.

"That's all I'm saying, just airing on the side of skepticism."

It strains credulity much more than believing David existed.

"Suppose we had a non-Biblical record attesting to that. How are we to prove that lineage?"

It doesn't matter if it (the particular lineage) can be proven. The point is that a House of David existed. It's a historical fact. People don't write random inscriptions of make-believe royal houses on steles.

"The data doesn't say he exists, the data is extremely circumstantial"

All ancient historical data is extremely circumstantial. Your extreme skepticism would lead to us throwing out the historicity of all manner of historical personages.

"But we have no reason to believe David is a place-name, and that's the only instance we see of a House having a name other than a name derived from the founder of the dynasty."

I'm not suggesting it's a place name, I'm suggesting that it might be a name derived from a legendary figure.

"No not really. The question was if David refers to something other than the founder of the dynasty, what is it?"

No, the initial question 50-something posts ago was whether or not David wrote the Psalms. I don't see reason to believe he existed as we know him, so obviously his not existing (if true) would preclude him from being the author of the Psalms...that being said, even if I grant the idea that David existed, we'd still need something to suggest he wrote the Psalms--and the Bible won't due since, yeah, according to tradition, Moses took dictation from God...so yeah...that's not exactly a factual account of authorship in my opinion.


"Royal houses have existed for millenia. People know what they entail. Nobody is going to confuse a political party with something based on descent."

But we have issues with translation of ancient texts and meanings even today--

English has changed immensely over the last 1200+ years or so (older than that, but that's what I'm going with to be conservative to avoid a "No, Obi, you fool, it's not THAT early" statement.) Imagine how much different it could be in 2,000 years.

How many people do you know that could read or understand Old English...or even Middle English, for that matter? And we're talking about languages far older than THAT, AND we're assuming that we're still dealing with an English-speaking culture.

Let's say that--to the sadness of all English nerds everywhere--English is not a major language in 2,000 years, in much the same way Ancient Latin, Greek and Hebrew have all had their heyday and are now no longer languages that many people understand.

How many translation issues have we had from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to hundreds of other languages when it comes to the Old and New Testament?

Are you really saying that there's not even the slightest possibility that in 2,000 years a culture that doesn't speak English and is relying on translations which can either be A. wrong or B. crafted with a political agenda might make a mistake about "house of" and "party of?" We have literally dozens of examples of different Bibles interpreting and translating different words different ways with varying degrees of accuracy...you're saying that a similar phenomenon couldn't happen in with English?

If you don't think we could get it wrong, then you have a higher appraisal of our ability to avoid error than I do...which is totally understandable, they're 2500 year old texts in scraps and fragments and in languages which are difficult to translate sometimes. That being said, mis-translation CAN happen, either by accident due to a misunderstanding or intentionally.

"All ancient historical data is extremely circumstantial."

I don't dispute that, but some figures have better data than others.

"Your extreme skepticism would lead to us throwing out the historicity of all manner of historical personages."

1. I don't think it's unreasonable to liken David to King Arthur and that crossroads of legend and history--I DO think both probably "existed" insofar as one or more figures likely inspired their greater tales...that being said, I'm no more ready to declare Arthur real and say he pulled the Sword from the Stone than I am to say THE David wrote THE Psalms, which, again, is the main point, so I'll put that directly to you, Putin--

Let's say for a minute I grant David's existing as "David," and not as a legendary figure based on a previous person or persons. I'm still skeptical, but I can at least see an argument for it (even if as stated I'm still highly skeptical of it) so I'll grant it for the sake of argument--

How does that make him author of the Psalms, which was, again, the real issue 50+ posts or so ago?

Unless there's a stele out there that reads "Welcome to the House of David, Author of Some Rather Obsessive Poetry About His BFF Yahweh," we have just tradition to go on and, again, as this is a tradition that says Moses took dictation from an entity neither one of us believe in, I'm going to assume you don't find that tradition a credible source.

So...why take him as author of the Psalms? I said earlier that, yeah, the Iliad and Odyssey in every likelihood WEREN'T written by Homer, and were polished over hundreds of years as written texts, and the MOST we can ascribe Homer is the legend that he gave these stories in their oral form. If you want to say David "wrote" the Psalms in the same way Homer "wrote" the Iliad and Odyssey, and just give them credit for being associated with the projects, then sure, since we have no other named contenders, as long as we don't actually believe either put pen to paper or chisel to stone or whatever silly extension of that metaphor you like and actually wrote the Greek Epics/Psalms as they appear today, sure.

But that's not a compelling argument so far as actual authorship goes, and again, I'm still not convinced the David-as-we-know-him ever existed.

If you want to say a David-like figure or two ruled an ancient Jewish empire 3000 years ago, sure--I agree with that.

But THE David? That I have a harder time buying.

(I'd also like to point out the fun irony that it's the semi-Zionist Jew who's arguing AGAINST David right now and the anti-Zionist that's trying to defend his existing.)

Obi, I'm sorry, but if you can't see that you have an anti-Bible bias which impedes your pursuit of the truth, I just don't know how to relate with you on this topic.

So, uh... what's on your Boo Tosh list ?

I wonder if anyone thinks obiwanobiwan has a job.

'Book' ~ or doesn't need one ;)