History versus Myth

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Gilgamesh - probably a historic King from the Mesopotamian city-state of Uruk.
Abraham - possibly based loosely on a historic tribal leader originally from the city of Ur in Mesopotamia.
King David - most likely a historical Chieftan of an Israelite tribal confederation, based on archeological evidence.
King Arthur - probably loosely based on a Briton war chieftan who led indigenous Britons against Anglo-Saxon invaders.
Agamemnon and Achilles - possibly loosely based on Mycenean kings and war lords around the time of the Trojan War.
Lao Tzu (Laozi) - probably a legendary figure who represents a loose amalgamation of early Taoist sage teachings.
Romulus - a completely legendary founder of Rome, supposedly descended from Aeneas.
Pretor John - a mythical figure based on European legends of a great Christian King in central Asia, having no basis in historical fact.
 
Cypress said:
King David - most likely a historical Chieftan of an Israelite tribal confederation, based on archeological evidence.
Click to expand...

Interestingly in the Biblical accounts of David's life when he is "on the run" he visits towns that didn't exist at the nominal time of his existence.

In The Bible Unearthed the authors indicate that there is precious little extra-biblical evidence (apart from the Tell Dan stele) that would indicate David was real. However as Ehrmann notes in his blog that's not surprising since it wouldn't be expected for kings of small countries to be mentioned in many other sources.

Ehrmann goes on to mention that the stories about David were probably written 400-500 years AFTER his presumptive reign and are largely "mythical" perhaps not unlike the Arthurian legends. But he feels David was probably a real person which stands to reason.

There is actually almost no archeological evidence apart from the Tell Dan Stele that I am aware of for the existence of David. What have you heard about?


 
Cypress said:
Gilgamesh - probably a historic King from the Mesopotamian city-state of Uruk.
Abraham - possibly based loosely on a historic tribal leader originally from the city of Ur in Mesopotamia.
King David - most likely a historical Chieftan of an Israelite tribal confederation, based on archeological evidence.
King Arthur - probably loosely based on a Briton war chieftan who led indigenous Britons against Anglo-Saxon invaders.
Agamemnon and Achilles - possibly loosely based on Mycenean kings and war lords around the time of the Trojan War.
Lao Tzu (Laozi) - probably a legendary figure who represents a loose amalgamation of early Taoist sage teachings.
Romulus - a completely legendary founder of Rome, supposedly descended from Aeneas.
Pretor John - a mythical figure based on European legends of a great Christian King in central Asia, having no basis in historical fact.
Click to expand...
Batting leadoff and playing center field, Giglamesh.
Batting second and playing third base, Abraham
Batting third and playing left field, King David
Batting cleanup, the designated hitter, King Arthur
Batting fifth and playing first base, Agamemnon
Batting sixth and playing right field, Achilles
Batting seventh and catching, Lao Tzu
Batting eighth and playing second base, Romulus
Batting ninth and playing shortstop, Pretor John
And today's starting pitcher, leading Cy Young candidate Cypress.
 
Daylight63 said:
Interestingly in the Biblical accounts of David's life when he is "on the run" he visits towns that didn't exist at the nominal time of his existence.

In The Bible Unearthed the authors indicate that there is precious little extra-biblical evidence (apart from the Tell Dan stele) that would indicate David was real. However as Ehrmann notes in his blog that's not surprising since it wouldn't be expected for kings of small countries to be mentioned in many other sources.

Ehrmann goes on to mention that the stories about David were probably written 400-500 years AFTER his presumptive reign and are largely "mythical" perhaps not unlike the Arthurian legends. But he feels David was probably a real person which stands to reason.

There is actually almost no archeological evidence apart from the Tell Dan Stele that I am aware of for the existence of David. What have you heard about?
Click to expand...
Yes, I have mentioned the Tell Dan stele several times previously on this forum, and combined with the fact there was a well developed oral tradition which was eventually compiled and written down suggests there was a historical David, which the biblical David is very loosely based on.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Batting leadoff and playing center field, Giglamesh.
Batting second and playing third base, Abraham
Batting third and playing left field, King David
Batting cleanup, the designated hitter, King Arthur
Batting fifth and playing first base, Agamemnon
Batting sixth and playing right field, Achilles
Batting seventh and catching, Lao Tzu
Batting eighth and playing second base, Romulus
Batting ninth and playing shortstop, Pretor John
And today's starting pitcher, leading Cy Young candidate Cypress.
Click to expand...
I always liked to play third base, if I had a choice.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, I have mentioned the Tell Dan stele several times previously on this forum, and combined with the fact there was a well developed oral tradition which was eventually compiled and written down suggests there was a historical David, which the biblical David is very loosely based on.
Click to expand...

But one Tell does not a "significant amount of archeological evidence" make.
 
Daylight63 said:
But one Tell does not a "significant amount of archeological evidence" make.
Click to expand...
Why are you putting it in quotes? I never wrote "significant" amount.

We don't have any archeological evidence for Socrates or Confucius at all, but given the limitations we always face for ancient history, we can make educated guesses
 
Daylight63 said:
Apologies. I stand corrected.
Click to expand...
We are lucky to have anything from the 11th and 10th centuries BCE, when David lived. That was right during the Bronze Age collapse, where we have very little writing or archeological evidence, compared the classical age afterward, or the Bronze Age prior to the collapse.
 
Cypress said:
Gilgamesh - probably a historic King from the Mesopotamian city-state of Uruk.
Abraham - possibly based loosely on a historic tribal leader originally from the city of Ur in Mesopotamia.
King David - most likely a historical Chieftan of an Israelite tribal confederation, based on archeological evidence.
King Arthur - probably loosely based on a Briton war chieftan who led indigenous Britons against Anglo-Saxon invaders.
Agamemnon and Achilles - possibly loosely based on Mycenean kings and war lords around the time of the Trojan War.
Lao Tzu (Laozi) - probably a legendary figure who represents a loose amalgamation of early Taoist sage teachings.
Romulus - a completely legendary founder of Rome, supposedly descended from Aeneas.
Pretor John - a mythical figure based on European legends of a great Christian King in central Asia, having no basis in historical fact.
Click to expand...
History creates myths not verse myths. History records human behavior of ancestors living cradle to grave, not conceived to decomposed corpses living in series parallel time inhabiting space same rotations lived or alive now.

It is simple compounding chromosomes per ancestor arriving the 5th generation gap added to its previous 4 being the 30 ancestors of relative ancestry of each great great grandchild born currently here as conceived one at a time even with identical twins event.
 
Only the most tenuous threads that King Arthur was a historical person.


The first definite mention of Arthur appears circa 828 in the Historia Brittonum, where he is presented as a military leader fighting against the invading Saxons in 5th- to 6th-century Sub-Roman Britain at the Battle of Badon, written more than three centuries after the events depicted. He develops into a legendary figure in the Matter of Britain from the 12th century, following Geoffrey of Monmouth's influential but largely fictional Historia Regum Britanniae.

Historians propose a variety of possible sources for the myth of Arthur, perhaps as a composite character. Historical figures involved in such theories include Artuir mac Áedán, a son of the 6th-century king of Dál Riata in modern Scotland; Ambrosius Aurelianus, who led a Romano-British resistance against the Saxons; Lucius Artorius Castus, a 2nd-century Roman commander of Sarmatian cavalry; and the British king Riothamus, who fought alongside the last Gallo-Roman commanders against the Visigoths in an expedition to Gaul in the 5th century. Others include the Welsh kings Owain Danwyn, Enniaun Girt, and Athrwys ap Meurig.


en.m.wikipedia.org

Historicity of King Arthur - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top