Talk:David/Archive 1

message: Where is the substantial evidence that David has modern day descendent(s)? Some serious renovation needs to take place. This erroneous article seems marbled with invalidity.
: "Talut" is understood to be a rendering of David's predecessor Saul in such a way that it would rhyme with "Jalut". This sounds like an opinion, so I think we need citation here XoXo 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is editing this page? A cause for concern...

message: The current article states that:
:David was one of the most well known kings of ancient Israel, as well as the most-mentioned man in the Bible.
However I can find 895 verses containing 'David' in the King James Bible, 942 verses containing 'Jesus', and 1216 verses that contain either 'Jesus' or 'Christ' (or both).  This would suggest that Jesus is the most mentioned man in the Bible, and David is the most mentioned man in the Old Testament.  I'm updating the article to reflect this.
David may also be the most mentioned man in the Tanakh, but I cannot verify this myself.
--PJF (talk) 23:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most mentioned man in the Bible? 

message: What on earth is the support for the lengthy sections Psusennes II as the basis for David and David as a god personified, both of which were originally added on 30 April 2005 by user 81.156.177.21 of Authentic Matthew infamy?  Both sections reek of the very worst sort of pseudo-scholarship, pseudo-etymology, and numerology.  There is nothing on this Talk page or in the article citing any source, let alone a credible scholarly one, for this stuff. I'm tempted to just excise it outright but before I do I invite anyone including the original editor to support it, by reference to something other than Ralph Ellis. -EDM 04:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psusennes? Please. 

message: The article says David's life and rule are discussed in amongst others, Kings II. As David died quite near the begining of Kings I, this would seem odd.
Menachem
:1st Kings has obviously been confused with 2nd. If you see something like this, correct it please. PiCo 00:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the article re 1st/2nd Kings 

message: Doesn't the Bible mention that David attempted to do a census at some point during his reign? And that he got reprimanded by God? If so that should be mentioned in the article. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 22:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census? 

message: Biblical minimalists hold that David and his united kingdom never existed, and that the stories told about his life were made up much later by Jewish nationalists. Others consider him a real historical figure but, as with King Arthur, consider most of the traditions relating to him to have more myth than substance.
Is this really an accurate statement of the scholarly divide?  It seems to me that at least some scholars must still hold to the idea that parts of the Books of Samuel are derived from real historical traditions of the period of David (the "court history" theory), even if much of it is embellished or added later. john k 03:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That, of course, should be mentioned. Did you notice the addition about him being a mesopotamian? JFW | T@lk 03:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range of opinion 

message: While searching for the statue of David, i stumbled across this page and got thouroughly confused! Is it necessary to put a picture of the statue on here? Arent there some other nice drawings which are less confusing? -- The Minister of War(Peace) 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue Picture? 

message: As far as I can tell, this article does not even mention what century David lived in. I assume others are much more familiar with the subject than I am, so I'm hoping someone else can put that in. I recall there is not hard historical evidence, so it might need some good references. Cuñado  - Talk 02:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline 

message: I changed the transcription of Arabic "داود" from "Dāwūd" to "Dāūd". Every Arab I've heard say this word, says it this way (i.e. the waw indicates a long vowel in this case, not a /w/). I guess it's a matter of whether you want to follow the spelling or the pronunciation. PiCo 07:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the "waw" has a hamza over it. I added it to the Arabic part and added the apostrophe in transliteration. Cuñado  - Talk 07:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic Dawud 

message: Did the following to the Introduction:
Original:
:David (דָּוִד "Beloved", Standard Hebrew Davíd, Tiberian Hebrew Dāwíd; Arabic داود Dāwūd), was the second and one of the best-known kings of ancient Israel, as well as the most mentioned man in the Hebrew Bible. There is disagreement about whether David, or a model for him, ever actually existed.
:The successor to King Saul, who was the first official king of a united Kingdom of Israel, David's forty-year reign lasted from roughly 1005 BCE to 965 BCE (primary based on Ussher dating, though records from Ebla suggest that he might have existed long before that period, perhaps even a thousand years before that period). The account of his life and rule are recorded in the Old Testament Books of Samuel and the first of the two Books of Chronicles.
:Despite the fact that he is said to have displeased God on a few occasions, he is regarded by the Bible - and most Jews and Christians - as having been the most righteous of all the ancient kings of Israel. He is also unusual in that he was an acclaimed warrior, monarch, musician and poet; David is traditionally credited with the authorship of many of the psalms recorded in the Old Testament book of Psalms.
:The Bible states that God was ultimately so pleased with David, that He promised that the Davidic line would endure forever (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Judaism believes that the Jewish Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David, and Christians trace the lineage of Jesus back to him.
Edited version:
:David (דָּוִד "Beloved", Standard Hebrew Davíd, Tiberian Hebrew Dāwíd; Arabic داود Dāūd "Beloved"), was the second king of the united kingdom of Israel (c. 1005 BC - 965 BC) and successor to King Saul. His life and rule are recorded in the Old Testament Book of Samuel and the first of the two Books of Chronicles, where he is depicted as having been the most righteous of all the ancient kings of Israel, as well as an acclaimed warrior, musician and poet (he is traditionally credited with the authorship of many of the psalms). 2 Samuel 7:12-16 states that God was so pleased with David that He promised that the Davidic line would endure forever; Jews therefore believe that the Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David, and Christians trace the lineage of Jesus back to him. While the nature his reign and even his existence have been questioned, the account given in the Bible remains widely accepted by conservative Jews and Christians.
My aim has been simply to tighten up the text. I believe this reads more smoothly, and doesn't lose anything vital. I did, however, cut material that I considered either POV/unencyclopediac (e.g. edited out the passage about his being regarded "by most Jews and Christians" as as the most righteous of kings - a hard one to give citations for - and the piece about his existing "maybe" a thousand years before 1005 BC, which sounds to me like a fringe belief). For consideration. PiCo 07:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you approve :). I've added some more images. PiCo 07:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Folks, sorry to jump in a little late.  I have a bit of an issue with the phrasing of "Old Testament" vs. "Hebrew Bible".  The "old testament" is the way CHristians refer to the Hebrew Bible, but not the way Jews refer to it.  Could we use "Hebrew Bible" as a less ethnocentric term?  Elizmr 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we go back to Pico's version of the introduction? It seems much simpler than the present version, and doesn't lose any essential information (at least in my estimation). Carl.bunderson 23:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tightened up the introduction 

message: I've started re-writing the section on the life of David. The existing section is simply cut and paste from Easton's - it's embarrassing that Wiki shouldn't take the effort to have it's own work. Ive tried to cover all the best-known incidents from David's life - the ones everyone knows and that are familiar from art and literature, plus enough to give some of the flavour from the original accounts. For comment. PiCo 08:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life of David 

message: I see that in Arabic, David killed a giant named Jalut. In egyptian at least this would become Galut, pronounced Galoot. Could this be...?  PiCo 10:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually Saul who killed this particular galoot. -- Zimriel 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big galoot 

message: Tried re-writing this to make it shorter and to simply summarise current knowledge. I think I've done a pertty good job on the archaeological evidence, but not so sure about the Biblical side. Anyone who wants to amend this is most welcome. But one I do want, is to avoid re-hashing the perfectly good articles already on Wiki about the general reliability etc of Biblical texts. So we have the references to articles on Bible as history adn Dating the Bible. Anything in this article should be about David himself, and there's actually very little to say.  PiCo
:At PiCo's request, I worked on the Historicity of David section today.  It's tricky, because the historicity of David has been a battleground for scholars since 1993, so a NPOV and balanced presentation is crucial. In the future, I would like to add a "For Further Reading" subsection within this section.  Lawrencemykytiuk 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the apparent irrelevance of Solomon in this article.  I was trying to balance the observation that Josiah might have caused the book of 1 Kings to be modified in order to justify an extension of his realm to include the northern kingdom of Israel—though in the power vacuum as the Assyrian Empire collapsed, it could be questioned whether Josiah needed to present any justification for the expansion of his realm to anyone.  Since the city gates that Dever uses as archaeological evidence date to Solomon's rule but are located in David's expanded home realm (notably Megiddo up north), it's difficult to avoid bringing Solomon in.  In my revisions of today, I tried to present the biblical treatment of David and Solomon in a single view, in order to show the relevance of Dever's evidence for the extent of David's realm, as well.  Finkelstein disagrees with Dever and, characteristically, presents his own distinctive analysis.  Lawrencemykytiuk 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Still working on it.  Today I put in the latest installment. Lawrencemykytiuk 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Almost done (is it ever done?).  Will need to add a bibliography or refer to the bib. in the "Tel Dan Stele" article, which probably needs some work.  Thank you, PiCo, for your encouragement and inviation.  Please have a look.  Lawrencemykytiuk 18:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: PiCo, your editorial comments are very helpful!  Many thanks for your critique of the beginning; I have adjusted it to strike a positive note.  I will have to postpone the creation of footnotes until next week.  I appreciate your kind remarks and your most helpful criticism.  You have a refreshing balance of the two.  Lawrencemykytiuk 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: PiCo, the footnotes are completed.  Good suggestion.  Lawrencemykytiuk 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity of David 

message: Someone deleted the word "conservative" from the last line of the intro, making it read that the Biblical account is widely accepted "by Jews and Christians." This reads rather oddly, so I've made a slight edit to (I hope) molify our editor while still making the point that Biblical scholars increasingly doubt the OT account - the new edit reads that the traditionasl account is accpeted by "many (possibly most) Jews and Christians). PiCo 13:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  conservative 

message: Here is a slightly modified excerpt from my "talk" page:
:I would _like_ to add the following pared-down . . . [paragraph at the end of the section on "Historicity of David," but when I attempt to do so, the bottom of the article gets deleted, beginning at the footnote following "Cogan and Tadmor." There was a warning against excessive page length, so that seems to be the reason the bottom of the page was getting chopped off. A]ny advice you may have is most welcome [I was mentioning the problem to Humus sapiens on my talk page]:  
::The question of whether the biblical portrayal of David and his successors amounts to royal propaganda must take into consideration whether the books of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings contain prophetic rebukes of the monarchs of Israel and Judah, even an indictment for leading their kingdoms into disobedience and apostasy, resulting in the ultimate defeat and exile of both Hebrew kingdoms, as observed in standard Bible commentaries, such as that of Cogan and Tadmor[1] 
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lawrencemykytiuk"
Lawrencemykytiuk 00:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now successfully inserted a modified version of the above paragraph at the end of the "Historicity of David" section. Lawrencemykytiuk 20:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page length problem? 

message: The list of David's sons is incomplete. Missing are Absalom, Amnon, and Adonijah (there may be others).216.90.56.122 20:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David's Sons 

message: I've relabeled the section on David's life to make it clear that it's a scriptural account.  I also mention that the life blends historical and mythological elements, but to avoid any misunderstanding, I want to make it clear that I'm not using the adjective "mythological" to claim that any part of it is not true; instead, I mean to indicate that it's a deeply-held set of beliefs that cannot be tested using normal historical and scientific methods.  If anyone can think of a better adjective to indicate that much of this section is not conventional history, I'll be happy to use it. David 13:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck - you're walking into minefield. Yahweh only knows where the various incidents making up the biblical account of David's life come from. Certainly there was more than one source - most famously, the two conflicting accounts of David's first meeting with Saul are powerful evidence of two originally separate stories, quite possibly relating to two different people (or two different mythological heroes?) Similarly, the multiple Goliaths suggest that this story originally belonged to someone else and was later given to David. But you can get burnt at the stake for suggesting such things round here :). PiCo 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "mythological" 

message: Lets return to one of the basic issues here. Is the David King of the Israelites most commonly refered to as just 'David' or 'King David' or something else. Many of the editors voting oppose here, seem to be asserting that is most commonly refered to as just 'David'. However I would strongly assert no he is not. It is true that once a context has been established he may be refered to as 'David', but without context, as is the case in an encyclopedia, 'King David' is far more common. Throughout the Old Testament I would expect him to be refered to as just 'David' but in that instance context has already been established or is implied. Perhaps this is a source of confusion. Elsewhere and in the modern world you have to use additional qualifiers to avoid being ambiguous and in this case 'King David' would be the most popular choice.
Its just one example, but as chance would have it I was reading Irshad Manji's The Trouble With Islam this weekend and one passage caught my eye. In chapter 4 she describes a trip she took from Toronto to Israel, flying El-Al. After clearing security she says; 
:Michelle then took my photo in front of a sign for the King David Lounge (a name I found deliciously kitschy). (p86)
In many ways you would think that the courtesy lounge for El-Al would already have established some context as to which David they were talking about, but they still use the 'King David Lounge' not the 'David Lounge'.
The example of Alexander is similar. Septentrionalis asserts that the case of Alexander is different and today he is known by the epithet Alexander the Great. That's true. But one of the primary sources on the life of Alexander are the writings of Plutarch. Now, for example, look at this translation of Plutarch. Apart from one mention of 'Alexander the King' at the start, all further references are to just 'Alexander'. Just as King David is refered to as David throughout the Old Testament.
So where is the evidence that King David is most commonly refered to as just 'David'? -- Solipsist 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you still look for "the evidence" if the vote above went the way you prefer? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Known as David? - No he's not

message: Dear Someone out there,
Greetings. My name is George and I am a curious person. I was wondering why you didn't apply many pictures?
I also read the information and some was not grammatically correct, thus, my son, Norman would of used your grammar and would of been marked down on his project. Luckily, I was proof reading and correct these errors.
The manly fuzzy duckling 
:Thank you for helping out! Not all edits are perfect the first time they go in, but a wiki-based system allows people to come along and fix them quickly and easily, as you did. Welcome to the project! -- nae'blis 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious George