Talk:David

Note 65

Some of the materials in Samuel I and II, notably the lists of officers, officials, and districts are believed to be very early, possibly even dating to the time of David or Solomon. These documents were probably in the hands of the Deuteronomists when they started to compile the material three centuries later.""King David and Jerusalem: Myth and Reality", Israel Review of Arts and Letters, 2003, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

However well written, a government document, or an essay of synthesis hosted by a government agency, should not be used for historical matters. I'm troubled by the use of that 'probably' several times in the source. There are no 'probables' here. There is just a huge amount of fabulation, and almost zero correlation with external histories or internal archeological results. The perspective mentioned is legitimate, but it should not carry implicitly an official endorsement. Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we should question its reliability. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We have dozens of books and hundreds of articles by scholars on the lists, and you prefer a government pamphlet that has a lot of 'probablys' in it, when no one in the real world can agree about the basic assertions?Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would presume the Israel Review of Arts and Letters is based on good scholarship. I don't see why the text attributed to it should be suspect. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's neither personal nor political. One should not go to novelists and political websites for archeological theories, when material abounds on the subject, written by competent scholars. One should not 'presume' an amateur's article is based on good scholarship to endorse it, esp. when good scholarship abounds, and is easily accessed.Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to delete this content then? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Generally, It sums up one minority position within scholarship, one that says that, notwithstanding the improbability that detailed administrative lists would have been conserved for 3 centuries from the dawn of an inchoate statelet whose leader was illiterate, and which probably lacked a scribal class, these lists might ('probably') conserve the truth. A lot of this smacks of imitation of what Israel's elite learnt in exile from the Persians (David's seven counselors in Chronicles happen to be exactly the same number as the 7 counselors in the Persian king's privy council in the 7-6 century, when this section of the Bible was redacted, etc.) So since this is a conservative view it requires representation directly from a scholarly source, but should not be written as though it were probable, rather, as one perspective on King David's reign. I don't object to the idea: my procedure is, wherever, to seek a reliable academic source when writing up anything historical in wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, hope you don't mind if I just go ahead and illustrate the point with the edit here I thought necessary. Take a look at the new ref, which holds the same view, and the source is not subject to dispute. This is what I mean about trying, always, to give a direct academic source for stuff otherwise just googled up from the great wash of thir-hand versions of history available on websites. Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your version is much better, thank you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Bandit leader?

On one hand, some scholars say he never existed. Then others, apparently believing in some of the biblical text but not all, say he existed but only up to point x. Therefore this would make him a "bandit leader?" I can appreciate that the archeological record is blurry. But it seems to me, that a reliable source should stick to what he knows best. If it is archeological, great. If it is examining scriptural text, that's fine, too. But there are few experts who are tops in both fields. I think we should stick to quoting experts in their best (and maybe only) field. Student7 (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is no archaeological evidence that David was merely a bandit leader. That's simply speculation. The only possible evidence (Tel Dan Stele etc.) indicates that David was regarded at least from the ninth century BC onwards, to have been the first in a dynasty of Israelite kings. I can appreciate your idea of sticking to the facts, but if reliable sources speculate, there's nothing we can do about it. Wikipedia relies on published reliable sources. If prominent archaeologists describe David as 'possibly a bandit leader', then that's what Wikipedia has to go by, even if they have zero evidence to back up this claim. At least the quote is properly attributed. Lindert (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We frequently encounter media presentations (think "tv") where the production has wandered off topic or their supposed field of expertise in order to grab "attention." While we may want to use the "good" parts of the publication, we really need to avoid what is clearly pov. Most lengthy publications contain some pov. Often easy to ignore. Like here, for example. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the source? See [1] - the chapter starting on page 31 titled "Tales of the Bandit" where they describe the beginning of David's career as a classical bandit's tale. Maybe we should explain the description. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

From my experience, the modern Hebrew pronunciation is closer to dʌvɪd

From my experience, the modern Hebrew pronunciation is closer to dʌvɪd, as in dove-id. Drsmoo (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct regarding Ashkenazi Hebrew. In Sephardi and Modern Hebrew it's david. -- -- -- 21:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of present tense

Present tense is "chatty." It's intent is to "draw the reader in." It is very useful as a literary style. It is also used in Wikipedia for fiction. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_fiction It seems out of place in an article which is supposed to be describing an actual historical event that really took place. The style assumes that it is fictional which would appear, under the guidelines, to be pov. Student7 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I think we should use the past tense. Lindert (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not the present tense but the historical present. This is used to write about history, fiction, and "hot news". PiCo (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, historical present is the present tense, but used for past events. According to WP:TENSE: (...) discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well. History books are normally written in the past tense, and the historical books of the Hebrew Bible do the same. What this article does when telling the story of David is basically summarizing the account in Samuel (and Chronicles). All these narratives are written in past (or perfect) tense. So while it is not necessarily wrong to use the historical present, I think we should have a good reason not to follow the conventional past tense, especially when all primary sources are written in this way. Lindert (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Book of Samuel isn't a history book, it's a form of theology. Using the historical present alerts readers to that. Also, more practically, it serves to mark the biblie-summaries off from the surrounding article. PiCo (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

May we assume that there is no separate policy to show for that? And that your stand is that it is fiction and therefore subject to the policy regarding fiction?

This is the second time lately that I've read someone referring to Biblical history as "theology." I'm not sure what would lead anyone to think that. Student7 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care all that much about the tense, but I feel the use of historical present sets the summary of the bible-text off from our own article-text.

It's theology in a form that looks to us like history. In fact it's neither, as neither form had been developed at the time. The theology part is in the role played by God - everything that happens in the biblical history is people and kings showing their faithfulness to God (not many) or their apostasy (most of them); this pattern of some faith and much apostasy is the explanation the bible gives for the rise of kingship (Saul proves unworthy in God's eyes and God chooses David) and the fall of Israel and Judah (God withdraws his protection when the kings fail to enforce the worship of him alone). Explanations based on the will and the anger of God aren't what we recognise as history-writing today, but were the norm back then.

There's another way in which the biblical history isn't history as we know it: modern historians are expected to stick to certain standards in gathering the facts they put in their stories. Ancient writers, up to Herodotus, had quite different standards. One was: old is better than new. The older a source was, the more trustworthy it was. Another was: the historian must not exercise an opinion. He was a collector of sources, preferably old and venerable ones, and it would be presumptuous to judge them. A third was: All sources are equal. So everything goes in. The story of Goliath is clearly a folktale, maybe based on an epic about the great David. The author treats it as being exactly equal to what seem to have been some documentary sources from palace archives. To us, epic ballads are literature and lists of officials are much more respectable as sources, but not to the ancients. PiCo (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we aren't the first ones to encounter this biblical "stories" vs "history" in Wikipedia. If all the other Books/Figures use it, then fine. But I suspect that the books are mostly treated as history where history was intended by the author, as it is with David. BTW, David is treated as a historic figure in the Goliath story, by many. To say nothing of Jonah, Esther, and Joseph of the many coats. Student7 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to use the word "fiction" in relation to the biblical books or to David, certainly not on Wikipedia. Far too easy for pov warriors to say "it's fiction therefore it isn't fact." That's using modern categories. Getting into the heads of ancient people is far more difficult. PiCo (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverts by Harizotoh9

Harizotoh9 recently reverted a few edits I made. I'm puzzled by this, as he gives no explanation (for which reason I've restored the edits). So far as I can see the edits were mostly minor - like changing "chief" to "fief" (how can David accept a "chief"?), or deleting a comma and replacing it with the word "is". What's the problem there? The biggest was deleting the reference to Colin Thiele dating David's reign. The fact is he didn't - you can check the book, he doesn't mention dates for David. So unless Harizotoh9 can give an explanation we'll stay with my edits. PiCo (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about other changes, but, to me, "chief(dom)" makes more sense in the biblical age, than the term fief which is associated with feudalism. Student7 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. But what happened in that part of the story was that Achish gave a town to David in return for David's support in battles - which is very close to a fiefdom. But if you can find another word, sure. PiCo (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ref. 41

Reference number 41 is a broken link. Should it (and the accompanying quote) be removed?