Talk:David

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This is not a forum for general discussion of David.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Historical evidence

Can anyone put any historical evidence on this article?

Positions on Jerusalem cites 1004 BCE and King David as crucial in determining Israel's right to Jerusalem. Is there any evidence for the year 1004 BCE?

Johnbibby 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The section "Historicity of David" gives an good overview of the non-Biblical information on David. It doesn't amount to much - a disputed inscription mentioning the "House of David" is about the most solid evidence we have for the very existence of David (outside the Bible itself), but it dates from some centuries after the supposed lifetime of David and can't be used to obtain a date. The 1004 date comes from counting backwards from various other dates in the Bible - reigns of various kings, mostly. The trouble with that is that there are too many things happening in periods of 40 years to be credible (David himself is said to have reigned 40 yerars, for example - one of many times this period of years crops up). PiCo 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The hebrew words for "many" and "forty" were very similar, and would often be used interchangably. Hebrew is a language that is generally strong in metaphor but weak in precision. ("The World May Know" DVD set, Vanderlaan) Swift99 06:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


The article states the following: "The Hebrew Bible places David's reign from around 1005 BCE until around 965 BCE and the end of the reign of the last king of the Davidic dynasty at 586 BCE. Thus the early sources are much closer to the purported events of David's lifetime than the present day, and yet they are still, as far as we can tell, centuries removed from that time."

May I please ask what is meant specifically by purported events of David's lifetime ? (Joe Gatt, 2nd May 2007)

Please forgive my ignorance but the historicity section claims that there is lack of solid archaeological evidence of the existence of kingdom of David or even a big Judean kingdom. Then why does the first line of the article claim David to be the second king of united Israel? Has it been proved beyond doubt? Should it not be worded differently, something like David is claimed/said to be the second king of Israel according to the Hebrew bible? (Ambar, 1st August 2007)

[edit] Academic Confusion

In this article and consistently on the history channel, you have confused academics pondering what appears to them to be the unknownable, did a single soul from the Bible ever exist at all? And then you have those confused "scholars" warbling over their meager finds of pottery shards.

Well, fellows, it IS clear you will be confused the remainder of your lifes and so will all your associates.... BUT, the 80% of Americans and all Christians globally are NOT confused about any of it and so slanting this article in such a hair brained fashion to question the whole of it, e.g. did David ever exist , etc etc is carrying "de rigeur" to the point of absurdity for such widely held and "known" beliefs.

YOU do not know the sun even exists, but you do get a pretty clear clue each day with its rising.

Meantime, put a couple of shards under your pillow, and hope you have an erika moment.


/s/ CINCU, CMP,KK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.166.166 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Christianity

This section does not fit its title. Not only does it begin with an anthropological, as opposed to a theological or historical, perspcetive which no Christian (or Jewish) beliver would maintain (i.e. that both stem from the "Jebusite Zion cult"), but the only reference given is from a strongly Messianic website. To head the section with "In Christianity" means that the section should, at the least, be formed around the union of common perspcetives of primary Christian sects (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism or mainline Protestantism). This needs to be drastically altered to reflect, not an athropological or myopically Messianic view, but one that is much more indicative of historic christian theology. Otherwise, the section needs to be re-titled. I'm willing to do this myself, but would appreciate input from others on the validity of my comments here and if you agree then what the content should be.

This section is essentially a summary of the relevant part of the article on King David in the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica - definitely not a Messianic website. Did you actually look at the reference? PiCo 12:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears that I clicked on the wrong note by accident. My bad. The actual link is relevant... except for that it is still true that the current text in this section is a conjecture-based, athropological understading of David as someone who "took over the Zion cult" which has nothing to do with his image within Christianity (or Judaism) as to how his person and life fit into their understanding of history and theology. The biblical account, which I might add is the only extant account, speaks absolutely nothing to the adoption of the cultus of another people, but that David becomes established as king under the same same Hebrew religion that came out of Egypt. While the current text might be appropriate for the historicity section - perhaps even to show how the biblical account theologically meets up at this point with the Zion cult - it just doesn't fit in "David In Christianity".

I am going to submit an example of how I would like this to be rewritten sometime this weekend and would like some review...

I wish you'd sign your posts (four tildes, the snake-like objects just under the Esc key on the keyboard). If you're the same person who objects to the boiled-down EB paragrpah describing Christianity and David, I can only point out that the theme or point of that para is that Christians see David as the beginning of a divine bloodline leading to Jesus (and that this concept of a divine king was taken by David from the Jebusites of Salem - an idea I personally doubt, but who am I to argue with the EB). Anyway, edit away and let's see. PiCo 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the section title should simply be changed to "In the Encyclopedia Brittanica" or perhaps "Contemporary academic perspectives" or similar. That would seem to solve the problem. If this is the current edition or any edition under copyright we should make sure the content isn't simply being plagiarized --Shirahadasha 04:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"In Christianity" is fine. So is the use made of the EB - it's an attributed summary of the idea contained in a few paras of a far longer article, not a long and unattributed quote. And we have to have sources, we can't just make things up or put down personhal thoughts. What would be nice would be (a) more things toi say about Christian ideas on David, and (b) more sources. As for the first, I'm afraid that, apart from the messianic descent of Jesus, there's not much to say. But if you can find it, say away. PiCo 08:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

lead image was replaced, but I moved it back. The section where David's statue appeared mentioned it explicitly and it's more appropriate there. Pico, the reason I added LMLK seal is because this dates to the first Temple and it means "KING", seems very interesting for a see also in the article of Israel's most famous king of roughly the same era. Amoruso 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any strong objection to the LMLK seal, so put it back if you want. PiCo 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a look at the LMLK article and didn't see any mention of David. Was this actually used when David was king or later?-Crunchy Numbers 16:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobody knows, since no seals from David's time have been discovered. PiCo 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of kingdom of David

I deleted a map (fairly recently added) which said it showed the extent of David's kingdom at his death. My reason for doing so is that it comes from a personal website run by someone called Rusty Russel (see http://www.bible-history.com/biblehistoryonline_aboutbho.php). Not that I have anything against Rusty Russell, but he admits that he's no academic, just a man of faith. Faith is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't produce good maps. We need something more solid than this. PiCo 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth and early life

I added the section of "Birth and early life." The next day it was deleted by PiCo on the grounds that it is "all very controversial and based on assumptions rather than the biblical text." I disagree with PiCo that it is based on assumption. Every single point given is straight from the biblcial text: He was the son of Jesse (Ruth 4:22; Matthew 1:6); descendant of Judah (Genesis 46:12-Ruth 4:18-22; Matthew 1:3-6) great-grandson of Ruth (Ruth 4:13,17; Matthew 1:5-6); Ruth immigrated with her mother-in-law (Naomi)from Moab to Israel (Ruth 1:16,19); David was possibly born illegitimately (Psalm 51:5); called Elhanan as late as when killed Goliath (2 Samuel 21:19). If all of this is controversial, sorry—it's straight from the biblical text. I am reinstating the section. —Keith H. 23:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Keith, the material on David's descent is already in the article (see the section "David's Family"). (Incidentally, to speak of Ruth "immigrating" is anachronistic - their were no border controls in those days, no paperwork to be done, no Green Cards to collect). I hope you can agree that there's no need to repeat this material. More contentious is the rest of your proposed addition. First, the idea of David's being born illegitimately is highly unlikely - you'll be aware that under Deuteronomistic law an illegitimate child was not admitted to the congregation, a prohibition so strong that it applied to the tenth generation. Psalm 51:5 appears to refer instead to the fact that all men are conceived in sin and born in pain - a reference to Genesis and the expulsion from Eden. (It's beside the main point, but this is why this text became the basis for the beautiful Miserere transcribed by Mozart). As for the Elhanan reference, it's not textual - nowhere will you find a line that says "David was known in his youth as Elhanan," or anything like it. The section is headed "Scriptural Acount of David's Life" - in other words, it sticks very closely to the text, in order to avoid controversy. For these reasons I'm reverting your addition. PiCo 03:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adultery

The King James version of 2:Samuel 11:3-4:

And David sent and enquired after the woman. And [one] said, [Is] not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house>

Lying with another man's wife is adultery. I do not believe there is any doubt about the accuracy of this translation; and if so, the article text should remain and the doubt be explained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But of course, an editor's personal reading of the Bible cannot be accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source to resolve a content dispute. The Talmud, for example, reads this same passage quite differently. It claims that Uriah had given Bathsheba a Get prior to going to battle to prevent her from becoming an Agunah in the event he became missing in action, as Talmudic law prescribes for soldiers in Jewish armies prior to going into battle. It held that David was entitled to rely on this Get. Any contrary view would have be sourced to some notable commentator. There is a genuine dispute here. It simply doesn't matter whether one believes one is right or not. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I see an edit war developing here and would like to head it off. Shirahadasha is correct in saying the Talmud doesn't regard David's act as adultery - but the Talmud is only an opinion on the meaning of the passage - it should be mentioned under "Jewish tradition", or whatever that section is called, but can't be taken as authoritative. Likewise in Islam, David, being a Prophet of God, is seen as incapable of any morally reprehensible act - and again, the proper place to mention this is in the "Islamic tradition" section. For user Rebroad, I would point out that a personal user page is not the place to reach consensus on edits to an article - that's what article talk pages are for. (I hadn't even been aware of any on-going discussion on that user page). Anyway, here's my proposal: My concept of the Summary section is that it should simply report the text of the Torah story, without explanation or gloss. When I wrote this paragraph, (yes, it's originally my work), I simply assumed that David's act was adultery, both because that's the traditional reading in Christian circles, (like everyone else, I'm the prisoner of my traditions), and because it seems to me, as to to user Pmanderson, to be the plain meaning of the text (what else was Nathan talking about, and what else could have "displeased YHWH"?) Nevertheless, it's true that the text doesn't mention adultery (not even in Hebrew), and on closer reading there are other things that could have been disturbing Nathan and God, notably David's encompassing the death of Uriah, which was tantamount to murder. (But in that case, why kill the child as a punishment? - so I still incline personally to the adultery theory). Anyway, to keep to my originally aim of sticking scrupulously to the text, I propose that the contentious sentence be changed to something along the lines of David lying with B/sheba - it could even take the form of a direct quote: "David sent messengers, and took her; and she came to him, and he lay with her." That leaves room for further note of the various traditional readings in the appropriate sections below. PiCo 03:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Shirahadasha is indeed correct. An interpretation of the bible does not consitute a credible source. However, there would be nothing wrong in including a source that states which groups interpret the bible in this way, and adapting the text to make it clear that this is an interpretation by those groups, rather than stating it as a fact as it is currently worded. --Rebroad 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I have now made this compromise edit, and I hope this is something that everyone can be happy with. If it needs re-wording slightly please feel free, but please ensure to stay away from personal interpretations, and always cite sources if it's likely to be disputed. Thanks! --Rebroad 15:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
"Some Christian groups" is an enormous understatement. This is the plain meaning of the text (if memory serves, it is endorsed by a free-thinking Jew, in writing a commentary on the Bible). It is the quibblers who should be identified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems that some editors cannot refrain from tendentious and illiterate edits, I have repaired the violation of English idiom and marked it as worthless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that what the Talmud says is only an opinion about the passage, just as it's true that what a Wikipedia editor says is also only an opinion. The difference is that the Talmud is a WP:reliable source for a notable body of thought, while a Wikipedia editor's opinion is not. Doubtless there are numerous Christian (and a number of liberal Jewish) commentators who treat the event as adultery; no-one's doubting that. The issue is that Wikipedia can't say which side is right and which side wrong in the presence of a religious dispute. We have to use neutral language and then note that the different religious traditions have developed different commentaries about this text, and then present each view. No-one can deny that the viewpoints of both traditional Judaism and traditional Islam, both of which differ from the traditional Christian view, repreent notable religious viewpoints. Wikipedia editors aren't entitled to say one viewpoint is correct just because they personally think it better reflects their reading of the text. --Shirahadasha 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
And we have a sentence on the Talmud's view - or rather, on one view in the Talmud, which expresses multiple views on most topics it covers. One Wikipedia's editor's view on what the Talmud says is not a reliable source; nor does it justify calling all other views (including the meaning of the text without exebisis) goyish. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Attribution and WP:NPOV come into play only in the presence of an identified dispute. If there were a dispute about what the Talmud said, then I'd certainly agree I couldn't offer my own opinion as the correct view if a reliable source says otherwise. However, you haven't offered a reliable source who says that what there is a dispute about what the Talmud says on this issue, whereas the existence of a dispute on what the Bible says is clearly reliably sourced. That's the difference. --Shirahadasha 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Also, don't understand what you meant be "calling all other views...goyish", never said that. Without any exegesis at all, we have squiggly marks on a piece of paper; exegesis tells us that the marks were intended to have a meaning and what the squiggles mean. --Shirahadasha 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The present footnote suggests that the view that David was adulterous is uniquely Christian, which is unsourced, and incredible. One cite from the Talmud, as yet unspecified btw, cannot show that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


I've rewritten the first section of the paragraph in question to bring it closer to Shirahadasha's guideline regarding the Summary section, that it should reflect the wording of the text itself, without interpretations. (I can't find now where he says this, but I think itight be in an edit summary on the main page). I've made Bathsheba's erlationship with Uriah (i.e., that she is his wife) into a direct quote from the text - in fact, on a quick reading, the text says 3 times that B. is Uriah's wife, the last time, 2 Sam. 9, being the words of YHWH himself). I've deleted the footnote, as the Talmudic tradition that she was technically not';' his wife is too important to be buried away like that - it belongs under the section now headed "David in later Abrahamic tradition", under the section on Judaism. Incidentally, it also needs to be moer percisely identified in that section, with a reference to just where in the Talmud this traditoin is to be found. I hope we are getting closer to a solution on this, though I'm sure we haven't arrived yet, such being the emotions involved.PiCo 03:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions to the Summary section

I've made some revisions to the summary section which I hope other editors will look at kindly. Perhaps the most obvious s that I've turned the narrative part into present tense. The reason for this is stylistic: it markes the words of the summar (present te4nse) from the direct quotes from the text (normal tense).

The other major alteration is the addition of a subsection on David playing the lyre befoer Saul. I did this because the theme is an important one in Western art - the famous painting by Rembrandt, for example, which is illustrating the article. (As an aside, it's very difficult deciding what should go into the summary and what can be ledft out. The David story is full of incidents, and it's impossible to include them all. My guyiding preinciple has been to include those which are important to the story itself, and those which are important because they've entered into Western art and literature).

I've also made some revisions to the details here and there. Mostly this has been aimed at saving space. But I've diivided one existing subsection into three, on Jerusalem, the Covenant, and David's kingdom, because all three are important to the story.

Grateful for comments. PiCo 06:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the article

Anybody have any ideas/suggestions on how to improve the article? New sections? I learned today, incidentally, that Charlemagne's courtiers used to flatter him by comparing him to David. Must be lots of details like that waiting out there somewhere. PiCo 07:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to add some discussion of the heartbreaking rift between David and Michal. Meheller 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David and Mormonism

I changed the previous summary of David and Mormonism using some the canonical scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also added some citations. I hope it is clearer now. Any suggestions? Wrad 01:04, 17 February 2007

I feel the D. in Mormonism section is now far too long. We need to keep balance between various sections, but this part is now far longer than, for example, the section on David in Islam, and Islam is a far more important religion in terms of numbers of adherants, historical influence, or just about any measure you care to mention. Can you look at the section very objectively and cut it down to the bare basisc, within, say, five or six lines?PiCo 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I shortened it a little. I don't know if I can shorten it more without losing meaning. I do agree, though, the Islam section should be more proportional. Can anyone add to it? Wrad 04:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King David...a redhead?

Doesn't it say somewhere in the Talmud or via 'legend' that King David had red hair? Has anyone else seen, read, or heard of this anywhere? --WassermannNYC 11:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no one has responded to my query (yet), but this comes straight from the Adam article:
Yes, the Talmud clearly says he was a readhead! Alex Toussieh
Adam's name is a reference to red earth or clay, but it also can be interpreted as 'the one who blushes' or 'turns rosy'. This concords with Adam's capacity for shame or embarrassment. Note that the reddish clay suggests the presence of iron oxide, which is the mineral that makes blood red and accounts for the red-faced countenance of blushing. The same root Hebrew word turns up as admoni in subsequent descriptions of Esau and King David (1 Samuel 16-17), where the description is commonly interpreted as 'ruddy' or 'red-haired.' [bolded emphasis mine] --WassermannNYC 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Hebrew was written without vowels, which (a) made puns irresistable, and created problems for copyists at a later date when vowels became usual - what vowels to put in? There's a whole series of puns here, all based on the fact that all these words, when written without vowels, are identical or nearly so. The words are: adamah, earth; adam, man; adom, red; and dam, blood. There were no capital letters in Hebrew either, which meant that it was impossible to discriminate between adam meaning man in general, and Adam as a name for the first man. PiCo 06:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

David's red hair > all Royal's across Europe descend from David and scores of them have red, red gold hair...and the "red branch" the Irish are also descended from David, etc. /s willy the red

[edit] Islam template

I don't know if I like the Islam template. It takes up a lot of space and attention, and isn't that relevant. Plus, there is no Christian or Jewish Template, so why this one? Any objections to removing it? Wrad 23:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spelling

MAYBE A MOOT POINT, BUT DAVID IN HEBREW ON THE TOP IS SPELLED WRONG Axedmt 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that it was spelt וד instead of דוד however it should also be noted that David in modern Hebrew is often spelt דויד --Belfry 10:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


I've never done this before but I thought I might get a educated answer here. Does not the name David mean "loving" and not "beloved"???

1730 dowd dode

or (shortened) dod {dode}; from an unused root meaning properly, to boil, i.e. (figuratively) to love; by implication, a love- token, lover, friend; specifically an uncle:--(well-)beloved, father's brother, love, uncle.

1732 David daw-veed'

rarely (fully); Daviyd {daw-veed'}; from the same as 'dowd' (1730); loving; David, the youngest son of Jesse:--David.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.117.25 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historicity

I think that the above section is too long, or at least needs to be split into subsections. It takes up more prose than the rest of the article combined. Wrad 07:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the Jewish Tradition section to make it (I hope) more informative - but please, any one more knowldegeable than I am is welcome to have a try at improving it.
As for tighhtening up the Historicity section, I think it could be reduced by about a third without much damage, just by tightening the writing. But what do others think? PiCo 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is too much biblical tradition in it. Also the view of modern archaeological science should be covered. See: Israel Finkelstein/Neil Asher Silberman: David and Solomon. Simon & Schuster, 2006. --charlandes 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The section about excavations in the City of David are somewhat misleading and contradict other Wikipedia articles, i.e. 'not only are there no signs of monumental architecture, but even distinctive 10th century pottery shards are absent'. In 1997, the archeologist Eilat Mazar discovered pottery shards and the foundation of a monumental public building which were dated to the 10th century. reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Stone_Structure and http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/04/news/david.php harlan (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The ladies wearing sackclothe and weaping over no shards and who claim there are no monunmental

size public buildings might perhaps view the "wall" left as part of the ancient temple mount which contains in size likely the largest (200 ton plus) sizes stones ever moved in history in its lower layers of stones...all dated to the Solomon temple period of 1,000 bc. These largest stones used in buildilng in history might not be able to penetrate consciousness as monumental, but there they are. /s/ willy shard sr

[edit] David/Abishag illustration

The Abishag article has a good medieval illustration of David and Abishag. If anyone knows how to put pictures into articles (I don't), it would be nice to have it in our David article. Any volunteers? PiCo 13:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "serve to underline the likelihood..."

The article contained the phrase:

Observations such as this serve to underline the likelihood that the narrative is drawn from numerous originally independent sources.

This clearly violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. It states an unsourced conclusion as fact. Let's start with sourcing; who makes this claim? Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. First, the section on the historicity of David is largely the work of Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science (not relevant I guess) at Purdue University, with a PhD in Hebrew and Semitic studies (definitely relevant). He wrote this section at my invitation, an invitation I issued because I felt we (Wiki) could benefit from some editing by someone who knew the subject. Here'sa link to a review of an important if rather dry book Mykytiuk has written on one aspect of OT studies: in other words, he's a respected scholar in this field.
Next, the phrase you object to, "observations such as this ... underline the likelihood that the [narrative of] David is drawn from numerous originally independent sources." Without enumerating the observations, I would point out that this statement is a truism of biblical studies. Martin Noth formulated the currently accepted consensus on the a Deuteronomistic history in 1943: his suggestion was that the books from Joshua to the end of Kings were written during the Exilic period. The history has a unified theological theme, and a defined purpose, namely to explain why the God of Israel had permitted the Babylonians to triumph over his (Yahweh's) appaointed house, the house of David. It's axiomatic that the author or authors drew on original texts - in fact they refre to some of them, to the Book of Jasher, the Book of the Wars of the Lord, to the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (which is not the Boojk of Chronicles we have today - that dates from a still later period).
In my view Myktyiuk hedges his bets too much - there's no doubt among scholars that the story of David is drawn from more than a single source. See, for example, this online article from 1918(long before Noth and the modern formulation of the Deuteronomistic history) which mentions the relative ages of various strands of the Goliath story.
I suggest you do a google for "Deuteronomistic history", including the names of major scholars of the last half of the 20th century, such as Noth, von Rad, Van Seters, Cross, and anyone else you can think of - this should give you enough material to show how firlmy established the idea of multiple sources for the story of David is. Then we can talk.

PiCo 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think people who come from a university environment are great, but they often run into difficulties with Wikipedia because of the unique rules for content here. More specifically:
  • they almost always write from a POV, and try to make a plausible case for that POV, but don't recognize it as a POV - the opposite of WP:NPOV. They consider "neutral" to mean "what I consider to be the consensus of scholars who agree with me".
  • they almost always write what they "know" to be "true", rather than writing material that is verifiable.
  • they come from an environment that encourages original research, of course at odds with WP:NOR.
Regarding your other claims, I understand what the common views based on the Documentary hypothesis say, and your choice of the terms "truism" and "axiom" are both appropriate and telling. These beliefs (regardless of their many individual variations) are widely held, and they should be properly represented here, but they must also adhere to the WP:V and WP:NPOV constraints. I've removed one particularly egregious example of a claim that was a belief stated as fact, and I've tagged a bunch of other issues. It's time for you, or Lawrence Mykytiuk, to crack open the books/scholarly journals, and start citing them. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've started revising the Historicity section. Bear with me, as it will take some time to finish. But the first step has been to introduce a brief subsection setting out the sources available for constructing our knowledge of David. Please don't tear it apart, but do add "citation needed" wherever you feel necessary. (I have one citation in there already, drawn from the original section). PiCo 07:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Today's work was largely a revision of the existing paragraph. The plan is to go on and explain the various theories about the textual origins of 2 Samuel, which should fulfil the request for citations. I don't have a lot of free time to devoet to this, so it could be a while befoer I can finish. Please bear with me. (I intend to keep as much as possible of Myktyiuk's work, but he has very little on textual criticism). PiCo 09:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Historicity" section

  • I've started revising this section, to make it much shorter and to provide useful references and citations. I'll continue this bit by bit over the next few days. In the meantime, please add comments here, rather than in the article itself, and I'll try to integrate thwem. Also feel free to add "citation needed" tags (and any other tags) to the text. Thanks PiCo 06:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (A little later): The Historicity section now has 2 paras on the archaeological record for David. The second para cites Finkelstein's "Bible Unearthed", a highly controversial book, but the quote from the book deals with matters that are not the subject of controversy - the surface surveys and demographic analyses are well established, the controversy relates to Finkelstein's wider interpretations of the relatyionship between the biblical pictuer of a united monarchy and his own thesis of a Judah which was always the junior partner to a dominant northen Israel. PiCo 10:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Added a para suymmarising the scholarly debate on historicity. At the moment it lacks erferences, and I would also like to add links to major scholars and scholarly schools. Please feel free to make suggestions for improvement, including citation tags. PiCo 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It cites "The Bible Unearthed" as fact, which, of course, WP:NPOV forbids. I've NPOVd it a bit for now, but you can't just discuss this article from the POV of the minimalists. And yes, Finkelstein is a minimalist. Jayjg (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to avoid NPOV. What I'm trying to do is have a logical progression to the exposition of the argument - first the epigraphy, then the archaeology, finally the textual evidence. Finkelstein actually has little in common with the Copenhagen School, and dismisses most of their position, although finding common ground in some areas. Dever disagrees with Finkelstein in some areas but agrees in others. Then you have people like Freedman who ask, quite rightly, if the account in Samuel isn't tue then what's it all about? Meanwhile, thanks for your continuing help, it's appreciated. (Sorry, I'm not signed in) Pico.
  • I've re-written the 2nd archaeology para, dealing with all the non-epigraphical evidence, to make it simply a presentation of the evidence. References have to be from books and journals as I can't find anything on-line. The 3rd para will also be re-written to cover differing interpretations of the evidence, notably from the viewpoints of Finkelstein and Dever, who are probably the two best-known authorities on the subject. Comments? PiCo 07:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've now finished the archaeology section (a para about the various interpretations of the archaeological evidence) and begun the next subsection, on the critique of the text of Samuel and Chronicles. (This will begin with the minimalists and go no to discuss Noth and more modern scholars). Comments? PiCo 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in another section above, the portion of the Historical section about excavations in the City of David are somewhat selective and misleading. They also contradict other Wikipedia articles, i.e. 'not only are there no signs of monumental architecture, but even distinctive 10th century pottery shards are absent'. In 1997, the archeologist Eilat Mazar discovered pottery shards and the foundation of a monumental public building which were dated to the 10th century. An IHT article states 'Other scholars who have toured the site are skeptical that the foundationwalls Eilat Mazar has discovered are David's palace. But they acknowledge that what she has uncovered is rare and important - a major public building from around the 10th century BC with pottery shards that date from the time of David and Solomon and a government seal of an official mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.' reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Stone_Structure and http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/04/news/david.php harlan (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reb Chaim HaQoton blog

Does anyone know anything about this site, how reliable it is? [1]. The info seems in line with what I've read elsewhere abt the Talmud and David, but I'm not sure. PiCo 11:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that reliability is an issue in external links, is it? I removed it from here and Davidic line. If there are relevant portions worthy of contributing to the article I wouldn't oppose it's inclusion. On the surface it doesn't appear to belong here. Linking to blogs is generally considered gratuitously advertising them, and is frowned upon. Why have they been included all of a sudden without contributions to the article I wonder aloud? Jeff 08:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The information in the blog is in line with what I've read about Talmudic traditions (myths, if you like) about David. These date from the first few centuries BCE to about the 7th century CE. They're in the article, (and they are in the article) not because they are "true", but because they illustrate how Jews of a later period continued to embroider and extend the story of David. Most of these embroideries ended up in the Talmud, but one of them made its way into our bible: about half of the story of David and Goliath isn't part of the original story, but was added some time during the first few centuries after Christ. (The added portion is the verses in the middle of 1 Samuel 17 which tell how David was sent with food to his brothers and overheard Goliath's challenge: the original version has David already present as Saul's armour-bearer, and incidentally has David as a young man - a "man of valour" - rather than a young boy). So these later traditoins are important, and that's why we need them in the article. But what I really want is someone well versed in Talmud, which I am not, (I'm not even Jewish), to tell us whether this particular blog is reliable. PiCo 09:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading Reb Chaim's blog for quite some time now and I am extremely impressed with his scholastic and academic abilities. Without a doubt, Reb Chaim HaQoton could be considered an expert in his field. Everything he writed is well-source and well-documented and could easily be corrborated by looking up his citations. I have yet to read a concise yet erudite paper on the topic of King David's ancestry according to classic Rabbinic interpretation that is as well-written as Reb Chaim HaQoton's essay on that topic. 75.5.8.76 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the point. Wiki is not the place to advertise blogs. This is not being included as a source, it's being added to the external links. I'm sure every word of these papers are true and verifiable. NOT THE POINT>they don't belong. Jeff 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point at all. We don't allow blogs because (as a rule) they're unreliable; they're just a diary. And we don't use diaries and the opinions of persons as sources in wikipedia. But this is a well-referenced academic paper which happens to have been put onto blogspot. There's no reason not to include it, as far as I see. Carl.bunderson 04:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing. Jeff, you say the blog is not being included as a source, but it is - see footnote 15. I was the one who added it as a source, and my question at the head of this section was aimed at seeking opinions on how reliable it is for that purpose. Carl says it is reliable, and so does User:75.5.8.76, whoever he might be. So on that ercommendation Id like to leave it as a source in that section. Whether it goes in the External Links is neither here nor there to me. PiCo 05:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to have responded to your question of its reliability as someone well versed in Talmud, as I hardly fit the bill. I just meant to say that it appears reliable and well-resourced, to someone who often reads similar papers from JSTOR; though I suppose the end result is the same, I still wanted to clarity, Pico. cheers :) Carl.bunderson 06:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right Pico, we were talking about different things. I wasn't aware you used it as a source. I thought you brought this up the same day it was added to the External links, and my response was under that assumption. I was having a background discussion with the editor that added it asking why not just use it for sourcing some of the sourceless statements in the article. I didn't realize you had done just that. It's clearly a weighty piece of resource material by any definition. Who is that guy writing all that anyways? It's great. I will now fade to black. Do with the blogs as you will. Bigger fish to fry, right? Jeff 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead picture

Why isn't Michaelangelo's David the lead picture? That is certainly the most iconic artistic representation of David- and a lot less gruesome than the one currently in the lead. 138.237.165.140 02:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume it is simply a matter of taste. Caravaggio's painting actual addresses the event David is most known for in general. Also, Michaelangelo's piece, though artistically masterful, does not address David the person, but David the work of art. I prefer the painting for this article. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with stormrider on this one - Michaelangelo's David isn't doing anything, just standing there - if there wasn't a label on it saying "David" you might mistake it for a local bodybuilder; Caravaggio's is dynamic and narrative. PiCo 08:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious Link

Any idea of why a link to psi is in the links? --67.181.57.9 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move without discussion

Is anyone else concerned about the move without discussion? The move involved capitalization of "biblical". There is no exact wording in the MoS to support either position, and searching through various other manuals of style, it seems like both are acceptable. I think this is a case of where wikipedia shouldn't take sides, and allow both (like American vs. British). However, assuming both are ok, it would be unnecessary to change between the two. Does anyone feel like at the very least, this move should have been discussed on talk first, or have gone through WP:RM? -Andrew c [talk] 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, moves w/o discussion are annoying. And I think it was preferable being uncapitalized. The OED shows "bblical" being lowercase, and given its placing in the article title I see no reason for it to be capitalized. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I am moving the article back to the title it had for years. For a discussion and a vote regarding the proposed move, please see Talk:David/Archive001#Requested_move. If you'd like to propose a move, please use the proper process as described in WP:RM. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation line

Might the disambiguation line in italics at the top of the article be a... comma splice?! 212.84.105.227 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a cup of coffee and a Tim Tam and call me in the morning if you still have the palpitations. PiCo (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David vs David (disambig)

Am I the only one who thinks that "David" should redirect to a disambig page and not to this david. I think the disambig page fits the word david more than its primary use.

See adam for a similar subject and/or name.

Anyone agree?? --Mattburlage (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it could go either way. If it gets moved, though, I would suggest moving this to 'King David', which already redirects here and is a more clear reference to this article's subject, exclusively. (In fact, looking at the history of that redirect, it looks like this article was there originally, way back in 2002, but was cut-and-paste moved to here.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
See the section #Move without discussion above, re the recent move to David (biblical king) and back.
Most incoming links are intended for the biblical David. I therefore think it is justified to keep the article here at David. Anybody pushing for the move should be prepared to disambiguate over 1,000 incoming links. I already changed most templates to use the redirect David (biblical king), so the remainder are all individually coded to this article. Mind you, if you want to start preparing the way, nobody should object if you want to change those links to [[King David|David]] or any other existing redirect, since that will be permanently unambiguous whatever happens. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well... there are semi-automated tools to assist in that (you confirm each change with a keystroke, but it goes very fast.) Before anyone ran a tool like that over a thousand pages I'd want to be sure that there's actually consensus to make the change, though... even if it doesn't really matter (since I'd just be changing it to what's currently a redirect to here, as you say) people are likely to object to a wide-scale semi-automated change like that without serious discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I see this suggested move was strongly opposed when discussed before at Talk:David/Archive001#Requested move. If you think it's worth starting a fresh discussion, please follow the procedure at WP:RM. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Illustrated David

Anyone think, like me, that this article is getting a bit over-illustrated? PiCo (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we could definitely cut down on the pics. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this sentence accurate?

According to the lead, David is "claimed by the bible to be the third king of the united Kingdom of Israel after Saul and Ish-Bosheth." So far as I know Ish-Bosheth was not king of a united Israel. Any views? PiCo (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at 2 Sam, I think the sentence is wrong. Ish-Bosheth was never the king of a united Israel, as were Saul, David, Solomon, and Rehoboam (briefly). He clearly ruled only 11 of the 12 tribes, according to 2 Sam. And Chronicles names him, but doesn't so much as mention his rule. The Bible does not claim that he was king of the "united Kingdom of Israel". Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)