Josephus' Portrait of David

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by arnoldo »

There was probably other reasons why Josephus wanted to minimize David if the gospel stories were written contemporaneously.
Abstract
In the portrayal of David in his paraphrase of the Bible in the Antiquities, Josephus was confronted with a dilemma. On the one hand, as the beneficiary of so many gifts from the Romans, he could hardly praise David, who was the ancestor of the Messiah, and who ipso facto would lead a revolt against Rome and establish an independent state. On the other hand, David was a great folk hero, and his qualities of character could be used in answering the calumniators of the Jews. Josephus' solution was to adopt a compromise: thus he gives David a distinguished ancestry without stressing it unduly. He uses the figure of David to answer the denigrators of the Jews; he notes David's wealth to refute the canard that the Jews are beggars; he ascribes to him the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, and piety to counteract the charges that the Jews were not original, that they were cowards, that they were immoderate, that they lacked humanity (a corollary of justice), and that they were impious. When David is elevated, it is not so much for his own sake as it is to increase the drama of the situation.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23507841?se ... b_contents

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by iskander »

arnoldo wrote:There was probably other reasons why Josephus wanted to minimize David if the gospel stories were written contemporaneously.
Abstract
In the portrayal of David in his paraphrase of the Bible in the Antiquities, Josephus was confronted with a dilemma. On the one hand, as the beneficiary of so many gifts from the Romans, he could hardly praise David, who was the ancestor of the Messiah, and who ipso facto would lead a revolt against Rome and establish an independent state. On the other hand, David was a great folk hero, and his qualities of character could be used in answering the calumniators of the Jews. Josephus' solution was to adopt a compromise: thus he gives David a distinguished ancestry without stressing it unduly. He uses the figure of David to answer the denigrators of the Jews; he notes David's wealth to refute the canard that the Jews are beggars; he ascribes to him the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, and piety to counteract the charges that the Jews were not original, that they were cowards, that they were immoderate, that they lacked humanity (a corollary of justice), and that they were impious. When David is elevated, it is not so much for his own sake as it is to increase the drama of the situation.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23507841?se ... b_contents

David was a great folk hero, and his qualities of character could be used in answering the calumniators of the Jews. Josephus' solution was to adopt a compromise
Josephus hid the ugly truths about King David the murderer, adulterer, collector of foreskins, and ...

King David appear to have been a small-time warrior who arranged to have Uriah murdered in order to bed his wife. Uriah was a brave officer in his army and the manner of his killing and the reason for it would have been distasteful to the Romans.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by arnoldo »

David's excessive bloodshed appeared to have disqualified him from building the Temple.
You have shed much blood and have waged great wars. You shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth’”
1 Chron. 22:7–8

And Josephus does not hide this in his writings. .
So David called his son Solomon, and charged him, when he had received the Kingdom, to build a temple to God: and said; “I was willing to build God a temple my self: but he prohibited me; because I was polluted with blood, and wars: but he hath foretold, that Solomon my youngest son should build him a temple, and should be called by that name.
Antiquities of the Jews — Book VII

I doubt that David's excessive bloodshed may've been distasteful to the Roman Emperors. Rather, any messianic expectations associated with the Davidic line may've put a sour taste in the Roman Emperor's mouth. Hence, Josephus' apparent glossing over Davidic messianic expectations associated with liberation from the Romans.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by iskander »

2 Samuel 11:14
14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. 15In the letter he wrote, ‘Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, so that he may be struck down and die
1 Samuel 18 :27
27David rose and went, along with his men, and killed one hundred* of the Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. Saul gave him his daughter Michal as a wife
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by arnoldo »

iskander wrote:2 Samuel 11:14
14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. 15In the letter he wrote, ‘Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, so that he may be struck down and die
1 Samuel 18 :27
27David rose and went, along with his men, and killed one hundred* of the Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. Saul gave him his daughter Michal as a wife
I've read the entire Old Testament about four times and am familiar with this.
Matthew 1:6
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;

The fact that David killed so many people would've made the Romans leary of any Davidic Messianic expectation in the jewish population. . . Maybe even cause Jews associated with this cause to be expelled from Rome perhaps?
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by iskander »

arnoldo wrote:
iskander wrote:2 Samuel 11:14
14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. 15In the letter he wrote, ‘Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, so that he may be struck down and die
1 Samuel 18 :27
27David rose and went, along with his men, and killed one hundred* of the Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. Saul gave him his daughter Michal as a wife
I've read the entire Old Testament about four times and am familiar with this.
Matthew 1:6
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;

The fact that David killed so many people would've made the Romans leary of any Davidic Messianic expectation in the jewish population. . . Maybe even cause Jews associated with this cause to be expelled from Rome perhaps?
King David did not kill Uriah , he had him murdered to bed his wife.

Pompey had conquered Jerusalem and entered the Holy of Holies without much trouble. Titus had destroyed the temple. David meant nothing to Imperial Rome, but that David was a vile murderer and a foreskin trader, that would have been distasteful to the Romans.
The messianic warriors were finally silenced by Hadrian.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by arnoldo »

You may be right and the Romans didn’t care about what David did or didn’t do. The article cited appears to be based in part on an argument from silence. Therefore, the following may not reflect Josephus’ mindset in his depiction of King David.
. . . Any reference to David as the ancestor of the Messiah might well be considered by the Romans as encouraging revolt, since the Messiah was generally regarded as a political leader who would re-establish and independent Jewish state. We can therefore understand Josephus’ comment, which is deliberately ambiguous, when he says that “Daniel also wrote about the empire of the Romans and that it would be desolated by them.” . . Josephus says that he does not think it proper to explain the meaning of the stone in Daniel 2: 34-35. The stone was regarded in ancient Jewish exegesis as a symbol of the Messiah who would put an end to the Roman Empire.

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by arnoldo »

iskander wrote:David meant nothing to Imperial Rome, but that David was a vile murderer and a foreskin trader, that would have been distasteful to the Romans.
Actually, Josephus boasted about this to the Romans who would've admired this quality (who would find parallels in the writings of Homer and Virgil). 21st century sophomoric musings on sensibilities in the first century doesn't necessarily apply.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by arnoldo »

Interesting podcast about Josephus by Michael Satlow. . .

https://archive.org/details/FromIsraeli ... 19Josephus

. . .sometimes what Josephus left out of his writings is just as important as what he left in.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by iskander »

arnoldo wrote:
iskander wrote:David meant nothing to Imperial Rome, but that David was a vile murderer and a foreskin trader, that would have been distasteful to the Romans.
Actually, Josephus boasted about this to the Romans who would've admired this quality (who would find parallels in the writings of Homer and Virgil). 21st century sophomoric musings on sensibilities in the first century doesn't necessarily apply.
Both David and Bathsheva should have been put to death (Lev.20:10) for adultery.
10And a man who commits adultery with [another] man's wife, committing adultery with the wife of his fellow the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true
Post Reply