Introductory Essay 6

Comment on Religious Impact on Our Views of Historical Characters – or the Battle of the Super Heroes

As an example of this problem of cultural myths and history, and our current views on them, let’s take a look at how we view two “culture heroes” of two different cultures; the famous “Greek” from the Iliad, Achilles, and the famous “Jew” from the Bible, King David. (Both “Greek” and “Jew” are terms neither one of them, if they were real at all, would have associated with themselves.)

• These two heroes were relative contemporaries, from the late Bronze Age. The exploits of Achilles are thought to have occurred somewhere around 1100 -1200 BC and David’s story dates to about 1000 BC. So there is a relative common time frame involved.
• Both heroes have great and powerful stories written about them in “ancient” literature that have somehow avoided destruction and made it though all the ages to us.
• Both heroes were recognized by their respective cultures for centuries as idealized, but flawed, leaders.
• Both were studied by the leaders of their peoples, as well as by the “masses” of their cultures, to help to define “right actions,” or proper conduct. Their tales generally helped shape the “ethos” of multiple generations of Greeks (and those emulating Greeks) and Jews (and later Christians), respectively.

However, the Iliad was vastly more popular for the first 1200 years of its “shelf life” from about 800 BC to 400 AD, give or take a few hundred years. When Homer lived (if at all) is, again, open to debate. However, it is generally agreed by most current historians that the epic poem on the Trojan War first appeared among the Greeks in its current form, about 750 BC or so. It also appears that the oral tradition of Achilles was much older.

Who wrote the Bible, and when it was written, is also a subject of modern controversies, but it also appears that the stories of David were well known among the “Jewish” tribes and in the two “Jewish” kingdoms. They developed into some written form by about 750 BC. Again, the oral traditions of David go back a bit more. As noted, the Achilles story is two or three hundred years older than the “David stories.” That said, the two heroes are still in the same relative time frame, and as such can be considered as “cultural hero rivals”.

However, in the first 1200 years or so of their “cultural myth rivalry,” Achilles had by far the better “press.” Achilles was “universally” known, first in the Greek world, and then, later throughout the Roman/Greek world. The Iliad went with Greek culture (Hellenism) where ever it spread. In many ways, the Iliad was used in the spread of Hellenism in the same way as the Bible was used to spread Christianity. Of course the literature of Hellenism was, by no means, limited to one book. At the time of Caesar, the Iliad was read and studied, and Achilles held up as either the “ideal,” or as the great Anti-Hero. The Romans tended to favor Hector and the Trojans, since one of the foundation stories of Rome was that it was started by the Trojan survivors of the war. This popular interpretation had it that these hearty Trojans spread out all over the known world from the British Isles, to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reading and studying the life of Achilles, and his life choices, was “mandatory” for any “cultured” person of the time. At first the popularity of the Achilles story was mostly limited to the Greeks , but after Alexander, in 325 BC or so, Achilles was made “universal.”.

For most of these 1200 years of Achilles dominance, David was more of a “backwater” hero, mostly known and admired in the relatively narrow “world” of the “Jews” (again, loosely using that term). Remember that this time period was, for the most part, one of Jewish defeat, exile and rule by rival cultures. Even within the Jewish community, David’s role was not always considered as a highly valued, or exalted person. In the Jewish writing he is portrayed as a flawed person, the seducer of women, the killer of his own son (perhaps even a killer of more than one son). He was portrayed as a flawed man, who had committed so many evil acts that he was denied the right to build the house of the Lord.. He was so evil that at times God condemned him to death (only to have his infant son die in his place Ð far more on this event later.) .

As Judaism evolved, especially during and after the Babylonian Exile, the toleration of other religions, such as Ba’alism, was seen as grievous error that eventually caused the destruction of the Jewish kingdoms. However, in the stories about David we see that he was clearly tolerant. Therefore, David’s flaws, among Jews of this time, appear to greatly out weigh his good deeds. So even among the Jews, he was not always given the status of what Achilles was given within the Greek world.

The status of both David and Achilles, however, changed greatly with the rise of Christianity and the subsequent repression of Greek (Hellenistic or “classical”) culture by the new power elite (the Christian Church). Starting roughly about 350 AD, the writings of Homer, as well as almost all other “classical” writers were not only repressed, but soon, by 400 AD, the study of these classical writings was limited to only some of the elite Christian church members As noted, once in power, the new Christian elite did all they could “to eliminate the competition” of their newly won power, and the Church tried to destroy the vestiges of the “Classical world.” As noted; The “Christian Emperors”, in support of their new “universal religion” closed the schools of philosophy throughout the Roman world, and even ended the (1200 year old) Olympic Games.

• The rise of Christianity was the rise of the “dark ages” in the area of thought and also the “fall of Achilles” from his 1200 year reign as the “cultural ideal.”
• The Christians also had a son of god as their hero, and needed to repress this Greek son of a god.

Since within this new Christian world, the Old Testament was among the few pieces of literature allowed to be read (or disseminated to the illiterate by priests), the rise of Christianity led also to the elevation of King David to a new, “super hero” status for all under the rule of the Christians.

In the arena of an “action hero”, for this new world of repressed literature, David had almost no competitors, being the “top king” in the only book allowed to relay history. And, since the Muslims used the Old Testament as a foundation for their religion, David became a “cultural hero” in the Muslim world as well.

While David did have some local rivals (King Arthur, or Roland, for example) he was the only “universal” hero in the lands where the Bible (and the Koran) dominated the world view. So for the next 1000 years or so, while the stories of Achilles could not be completely repressed, David became the dominant, officially sanctioned “super hero.”

What a sad world it would have been for DC Comics, and the lovers of DC comics, if Batman was the only super hero around. In some ways this is exactly what happened for David. He was the only “action hero” around, and for young men wanting an action hero, he was the only option that could be read and talked about (without threat of death). His kingdom and its importance became overstated (and that’s an understatement), by the readers of the time. In this respect the kingdom of David is very much like the kingdom of Arthur.

Therefore, for most of the next 1000 years (say 500 to 1500 AD or so,) David far out did Achilles, in their “cultural hero” rivalry.

• The Church demanded belief in the Bible as “literal fact.” Therefore, not “believing” in King David, and the “history of his time” as presented in the Bible, was a “sin” and, actually, for most of the 1000 years (and more), a sin punishable by at least ostracism, “spiritual damnation”, and often, torture and death.

The “Renaissance” and “the Age of Reason” brought Achilles back as a competitor for “number one” cultural icon. Even with these revivals of the studies of classical literature the reading of the Iliad and other writings was only “allowed” by the Church as the study of “myths” and ancient stories. They were never to be considered as actual “history.” The Church resisted anything that questioned the Bible and the Iliad showed a different world than that of the Davidic kingdoms.

• Therefore, as early as the 5th century AD, few in the West could question if David was real or not, without dire threat to themselves and their families. The concept of the “historic David” was therefore incorporated as “history” in the West, because it was in the Bible, and the Bible could not be questioned.

Even today, most of the history books used in the schools of these Christian/Muslim areas (and due to the expansion of the Western world through colonialism, modern technology and religious apostatizing), David is presented as an actual historical “being,” while Achilles, if anything, is considered a good story, but a mythical character.

History as taught in the West talks extensively about the kingdoms of David, and Solomon. Modern atlases that show the ancient world, almost always include maps of the Davidic Kingdom based on what is stated in the Bible. Fundamentalist Christians and Jews who support the “Greater Israel” concept base their justification in the Biblical descriptions of the extent of the Davidic kingdom (from the “Euphrates to the Nile”)

Achilles, while revived from the obscurity he “suffered” during the “dark ages,” for most of these 5-700 years (the Renaissance to the present) was relegated to “myth,” if discussed at all. The Iliad was read in literature or “mythology” courses, if read at all.

However, the tale takes a strange twist, as European Imperialism developed. By the 19th century, Achilles stories were read extensively to the “modern young men”, of the middle and upper classes Europe to prepare them for their lives s soldiers. However, he was still seen as a quaint and curious character of the past, by the culture of the time (His story of being the son of a God was stressed as myth, while Jesus being the son of God could still not be questioned). One of these children of the 19th century, Heinrich Schliemann, did grow into adulthood, believing in these stories to be truth, and eventually his efforts led to the finding of Troy. (See http://library.thinkquest.org/3011/troy.htm )

Because of this “enthusiastic amateur” what we know now is that there is actually far more archeological and “contemporary other source documents” to support the existence of Achilles, than David.

• Other than the Bible there is no documented source or major archeological evidence to support the contention that there was a King David, and there is extensive documentation of other cultures of the time that make no mention of a great Jewish Kingdom around 1000 BC.

For facts supporting the existence of Achilles, we have Troy itself, with strong evidence to support the historical event of the sacking of the city in the relative time frame of Homer’s epic poem. We also have found the Mycenaean cities throughout Greece, and have strong evidence of their “wars of expansion”. We have extensive articles of art and weapons from the period, which fill museums around the world, showing that much of what was discussed in the Iliad, in Homer’s stories (type of weapons, type of combat, valued objects, religion etc) is clearly supported by material found through archeological efforts. Also, tombs of the time discovered reflect the culture presented in the stories. While the supposed “death mask” of King Agamemnon and “Clytemnestra’s tomb” are real and are dated to the relative time period of Achilles, we can not really prove that these factual findings are connected to the “historic” people that the tourist industry would like us to believe. However, the Lion’s Gate at Mycenae, and the tombs and the mask exist.

We also have extensive records from other cultures, including the Hittites, of their relationships with Troy, and we have these other cultures’ chronicles which record worry about the Mycenaean Greeks, and their warlike intentions. It is still not completely clear, but it is strongly possible that the famous “Sea People” which almost took Egypt were in fact part of a renegade Mycenaean Greek group. It is also possible that the Mycenaean Greeks were destroyed by the “Sea People,” as well. http://www.phoenician.org/sea_peoples.htm

While there is no direct evidence that there was an Achilles, such as a tomb with his name, etc, there is extensive evidence that the events that are written about may have occurred in a very similar fashion to what is represented in the writings. Clearly something happened there, at Troy, during the time period. So while we can not really say Achilles existed, or in fact the Trojan War, as represented in the Iliad, took place, there is enough evidence to say, well, “maybe, and even “possibly.” Considering the evidence, the Achilles character, or someone like him could have existed (stripped of all the legends Ð half god, protected from harm, except in the heel, etc.). The evidence shows the story fits the times, and the times fit the story, from multiple sources.

• However, we have none of this type of evidence in support of David.

There are no independent sources to show that David was the king of a united Israel, never mind a mighty king ruling over a relatively vast empire from the Nile to the Euphrates. There is no evidence in the well kept and organized Egyptian chronicles to support this Biblical claim. There is nothing in the remains of the Babylonian, Assyrian or Phoenician writings about David or a mighty Jewish kingdom in the time frame presented in the Bible. Herodotus, who wrote in great detail about everything, never mentions David, never mind the Jews (which is interesting in itself).

Perhaps most damning of all, there is simply no archeological evidence at all to support either a mighty kingdom, in the time period, or a great temple built by his famous son, Solomon. There are no stone writings with his name or warning of the coming of the Great Jewish kingdom’s army, nor actually artifacts of any kind dated back to the Davidic Kingdom. We do have one find, dated three hundred years after David, in which a king claims to be from the House of David, but that may only mean that David was a cultural icon, not a real king. Again, this is similar to the Kings of England claiming descent from King Arthur.

The artifacts from that time period of about 1000 BC actually show “the holy land” to be a relatively disorganized land dominated by peoples and cultures other than the Jews (or Hebrews or Israelites, as a more proper term for the time). The evidence clearly shows that the “David” portrayed in the Bible did not exist. To put it more generously, the David story cannot, at this time, be proven. There seems to be agreement among serious, “disinterested” historians that if David existed at all, he was a minor leader of a minor group, perhaps even a group of outlaws; a Robin Hood (maybe) rather than a King Richard.

This expansion of the “rule” of the culture hero is nothing new. The Arthur stories start him off as the king of a small Celtic land in Britain. Remember the name England is derived from the Angles invaders who along with the Saxons and Jutes came much later than Arthur. These invaders actually defeat Arthur’s “descendants. ‘ It is only in this later time period that the medieval legends of King Arthur ruling over all of Europe grow. So, it appears that the land under the rule of David expanded as his myth grew. Nothing really new here, except since it was in the Bible, for centuries it was deemed true, and unchallengeable.

Despite the extensive findings in Greece, and the non-findings in Israel, David remains in the minds of most Americans as a real and important person in history, the best king of a united Israel, the killer of Goliath. With all that we know, cultural myths still determine popular belief.

With our limited understanding of time, we can see how fifteen hundred years of “culture myth” is hard to undo. Contemporary Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) is trying to maintain beliefs in an increasingly secular world, where research and evidentiary procedures are trumping many of the foundations of the various creeds. So the demystification of David has not gotten a lot of “air time.” The belief that David was a real historical leader as portrayed in the Bible is still the belief of most people, at least in America. So, myth triumphs over facts again, and cultural heroes are hard to dethrone. When people really think that myths are facts its makes writing about facts of the past so very difficult.

From the Museum of Antiquities in Ankara showing just a very few items that support the existence of the Ancient cultures mentioned in the Iliad and far older, while none have been found to support the kingdom of David (personal photographs)